DealsOnTheWeb Daily Deal: OneCall's Weekend Sale - 20 Great Items at Great Prices All Weekend Long
Just a Thought - iPod Hi-Fi: Huh?
by
- March 13th, 2006Someone help me out here: I think I'm missing the point of Apple's newest iPod accessory, the iPod Hi-Fi, and it's bugging the bejeezus out of me.
If we stroll into any Apple Store, Store-in-a-Store (CompUSA), or one of the increasing number of iPod vendors, like Target, Wal-Mart, or BJ's, we are apt to find at least 2 third party speaker peripherals designed specifically for the iPod.
I'm not talking about the speaker systems that uses a mini-headphone jack for connectivity; the makers of those products were trying to address what they perceived as being the widest possible audience, and often, the products aren't so great (with the notable exception of Tivoli's iPAL).
No, I'm talking about products like the Bose SoundDock, or Altec Lansing's inMotion iM3c Speakers, the humble iHome iH5, or iSongBook from Tivoli Audio. Each of these products, and dozens more like them, includes a docking port that only an iPod can use.
What this means, boys and girls, is that these companies have spent a good amount of time, effort, and money bringing products to the market aimed at iPod owners ONLY.
Remember, they don't do for altruistic reasons; they do it because they can make money at it.
So, we've got stores overflowing with iPod speaker products, some fabulous, some not so, and Apple decides it should come out with a speaker system as well.
Why?
iPod Hi-Fi sounds great, but so does the SoundDock System from Bose (or maybe not if you take into account our recent review). iPod Hi-Fi looks cool if you are into breadboxes, but JBL's OnStage II or XtremeMac's MicroBlast speakers for iPod nano also look pretty good. At $350, the iPod Hi-Fi ain't the cheapest suit on the rack, and while it may be luggable and battery capable, it's probably not something you will want to toss in the trunk for a day at the beach.
So, who is this thing aimed at? Audiophiles? Please! Anyone serious about his or her music will invest in a system where the discreet speakers can cost more than 10x the cost of the Hi-Fi, and the iPod might no even rate as a good component.
How about the guy who wants music in his office or den? Such systems tend to be used to play background music, and almost any setup will do for that. If you must have hi-fi quality moozac wafting through your office, Bose, Infinity, and Tivoli offer systems that sound as good, I think, or better and cost less.
There's no WiFi on Hi-Fi (you have to buy Airport Express for that), and no wireless connectivity (Bluetooth or other), but there is analog and digital input. WiFi integrates well with the iPod, but then, so do other non-Apple made systems.
I did take a listen to the iPod Hi-Fi, the local Best Buy has one on display along side a Bose SoundDock; hardly a place to really get to know a speaker system. Still, the Hi-Fi sounded nice, it does have a better bass response than the Bose, but I would argue that the Bose sounds better. Of course, what sounds good to me may remind you of a midnight cat-call; it's very subjective.
This leaves me still scratching my 2-day old scalp stubble as to why Jobs and crew felt that this particular device was something Apple needed to make. It's gotta have the other speaker vendors wondering what Apple is up to. Could Apple be attempting to completely corner the iPod accessory market?
To be blunt, such a move would be beyond stupid. One of the biggest reasons people think the iPod is cool is the long list of peripherals available. No other digital music player has more accessories. While other MP3 player makers look to build features in, Apple wisely gave the iPod the docking port and opened up a world of possibilities for its device.
But, if vendors don't feel they can create and grab a sliver of iPod peripheral pie without the 600 pound Apple gorilla snatching it back with me-too products, then they will likely not bother, and that would be a very bad thing.
Apple has the best seat in the house when it comes to the technology that supports the iPod. To get the "Made for iPod" seal of approval, vendors must let Apple review the product to see whether it meets Apple's high standards. This, of course, is a good thing because it keeps the junk out, which, in turn, keeps the iPod image of high quality untarnished.
In such a position, however, Apple can see what's hot, what's not, and what has potential. Of course, no one would believe that Apple would take advantage of this position to take an insider's peek at the competition, then use that data to create an accessory that is juuust a bit better than its competitors.
I wouldn't believe that Apple would stoop to such dirty tricks, of course, but some might, and it's the appearance of being tricksy and false that might send would-be iPod accessory makers running.
I'm still wondering why Apple came out with the Hi-Fi, and other accessories as well, when other companies seem to be doing such a good job of supporting the iPod. I've pondered this behavior for a bit, and I've realized that there actually could be a method behind Apple's apparent madness.
Other me-too products that Apple have come out with don't improve greatly on existing products, they tend to be good quality products, but not the best in a particular niche. Take the iPod cases, for example; Apple's neoprene cases are OK, but cases from vendors like XtremeMac are better in many respects. The same can be said for earplugs/headphones and other iPod peripherals; Apple's iPod peripherals are good, but you can always find something better from someone else.
It could be that Apple maintains a presence in each niche to keep other vendors thinking, to keep the creative pot stirred. Also, if it happens that vendors drop out of a niche then Apple has a product to cover it.
Maybe I've answered my own question. Maybe Apple is just protecting its ass-sets. Perhaps Apple merely wants to earn an extra buck or two in the market it created when it introduced the iPod; it is a business after all, and there's nothing that says that Apple can't go head to head with accessory makers.
So, I guess I'm willing to give The Cupertino Crew the benefit of a doubt: The question is, will peripheral vendors be so understanding?
is a writer who currently lives in Orlando, FL. He's been a Mac fan since Atari Computers folded, but has worked with computers of nearly every type for 20 years.
You can send your comments directly to me, or you can also post your comments below.
Most Recent Columns From Just A Thought
- Apple's New Cards: Aces and Kings? - September 14th
- Power to the People - September 1st
- Too Soon To Zune - August 28th
The Just A Thought Archives
Observer Comments
I understand those concerns, but if you think that Apple shouldn't release hardware that competes with existing third-party hardware, then presumably you think it shouldn't release software that competes with existing third-party software.
In the case of software, that would mean that Final Cut would never have been released as Premiere was already on the market.
But much more significantly, other MP3 playing apps were around long before iTunes. If Apple had not released iTunes, then there would have been no need for the iPod. Without the iPod, these third party manufacturers would not be making the money that they're making now.
Apple needs to make sure that it doesn't treat rivals badly, but it would be absurd to expect Apple to keep away from any product just because somebody else already offers something comparable. If Apple can do it better, then that's good for consumers. If a third-party manufacturer can do it better or cheaper, that's also good for consumers.
Apple offers some superb AirPort base stations, but that doesn't mean that firms like Netgear aren't selling thousands of their own WiFi base stations to Mac users too. If a product is good and sold at an attractive price, it will still sell well.
Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:50 am Subject: Hi-Fi created a new market
I think Apple built the Hi-Fi to serve a market that was not being served. It's a higher end product than any of the other iPod speakers out there. I don't think even the Bose can crank out tunes as loud as the Hi-Fi without clipping or distortion. At it's asking price, it's also priced above the competition.
With the Hi-Fi I think Apple is going after the bookshelf stereo market. It probably sounds better than most of the bookshelf systems in it's price range, and if someone is only interested in listening to their iPod, it offers a simpler, less expensive, Apple branded alternative to bookshelf stereos.
QuoteAlanAudio wrote:
I understand those concerns, but if you think that Apple shouldn't release hardware that competes with existing third-party hardware, then presumably you think it shouldn't release software that competes with existing third-party software.
In the case of software, that would mean that Final Cut would never have been released as Premiere was already on the market.
Right, but Final Cut Pro was BETTER than what other people were offering. Why should Apple be coming out with stuff that's pretty much the SAME as what everyone else is offereing?
That's the head-scratching part here. It's like they decided to start making potato chips or something. Yeah, they can make money at it...but why THAT product?
Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:49 am Subject: I think most people will see the HiFi as non-economical
When I first saw the release of this, I said hwat!? At $399, it is $299 higher in cost than the iHome for two small advantages:
1. Digital inputs for the Airport Express which needs to be bought separately.
2. A subwoofer.
For $165 if I shop around I can get a decent digital audio system that takes the Airport Express with 5 speakers!
And the iHome offers these advantages over the iPod HiFi:
AA instead of D cell batteries.
AM/FM stereo
Alarm Clock
The iHome already offers a remote like the iPod HiFi.
So honestly, it will only sell because it is from Apple. Everyone else who is looking for economy will buy something else.
http://www.ignitek.com/icarrier.html
^Cheaper than the Bose or HiFi, and sounds much better than both. I can't stop listening to this thing in the Mac Store I work at. Complete with remote, removable top, input, etc.
Vern is right about "sounds better" being a rather subjective yardstick. I have been the happy owner of a Bose Sound Dock since its release and I am very pleased with its performance. You get "room-filling sound" from a diminutive package that, prior to its release, was not offered in something as small by any other competitor. I will admit that I like Bose products ( I also have a Bose system for my home theater, and QC2 headphones for my World of Warcraft addiction) and I am biased toward their aesthetic appeal and sound in general, and despite what the most hardcore audiophiles say about Bose, it sounds great TO ME. Klipsch released their iGroove this year, which has been the only real competition to Bose's offering. Similar form factor, comparable audio performance (though it seems to have a slightly better bass response than Bose), $20.00 cheaper, and the one major feature Bose's unit was missing- auxiliary audio input.
So I was at the Apple Store in Tampa this weekend and I decided to take a look and a listen to the new iPod HiFi. I was meticulous and obnoxious. I brought my personal iPod in and listened to MY music in what were arguably less-than-ideal acoustic conditions...The store was PACKED. Macbook Pros, Mac minis, iPods, and iMacs FLYING out the doors (but I digress). I listened loud...VERY loud. I listened at medium volume. I listened at low volume. My musical choices were intended to put the unit through its paces for instrument differentiation, soundstage, bass response, vocals, etc. (Main theme from Star Wars Trilogy, Thunder Rolls, U2 Live from Dublin, Metallica- Enter Sandman, Audio clips from Airplane, The Mac Geek Gab, The Ramones, and Portishead) They had it set up right next to the Bose Sound Dock, so I then did some direct comparison. I mean, I know my Sound Dock sounds good at home, but it is nice to hear the exact same song from the exact same file played back to back in the two units. I think this is a pretty ballsy move on the part of Apple. Obviously they have faith that it will perform as advertised and not disappoint. And it definitely didn't disappoint. Apple's unit doesn't sound "better" than the Sound Dock, but it sounds "different". Bose focuses on mids and highs and has great sound separation- it is "treble rich" and if you crank it, it WILL distort on the lows its drivers can't effectively reproduce (anyone who owns one can tell you this and the various reviews of Bose speakers bear this out). Apple's unit has moderate treble but really does a great job on the mids and lows. It also does a surprising job of creating a "sound stage", or at least as good of a job that COULD be done from a unit of its size. My little test ended up selling not only the unit I purchased, but one to another customer who I struck up conversation with at the store.
So why would Apple do this? I think that they created a product with the intention of building on the weaknesses found in the other comparable units. This unit is not competing with the JBL, iHome, Creative, or Altec Lansing. Let's be clear, this thing is competing for Bose and Klipsch's dollars. Apple's unit creates a sound quality on par (though not identical) with the high-end competitors. It included the auxiliary input that Klipsch added to Bose unit and upgraded it to SPDIF. Apple then went further and made the whole thing portable and operable off of batteries (Which are capapble of actually charging your iPod while powering the whole setup)..something none of the other units do. Finally, Apple created a unit that is in appearance, very "Apple".
I saw the HiFi at a local Apple store as well. Very impressive sound, especially at moderate to loud sound levels. They really got a handle on vibration. It delivers room-filling sound with ease. And it's smaller than I thought it'd be when seeing it on Apple.com.
My ears can't tell much difference between the sound dock and HiFi. Except that the HiFi can belt it out effortlessly.
I don't understand how you can even compare the ipod hifi with the little speaker crowd. Short of Bose SoundDock or Audioengine A5, none of the other speakers really impress me enough to put one in my living room. They look like (and probably are) like the small "multimedia speakers" I used to have next to my computer. Their looks alone dissuade me from buying them.
The Hifi, however, looks (and due to the weight, feels) like a real and a robust audio element. If it were just a little bit cheaper, I'd buy one for my living room. (Or if it had AirTunes. Missing that sucks.)
This is what inspired designs could have been (and maybe in the future will be):
#1 A Video Boombox that accepts a video iPod. Traditional boom-box form factor. Probably about a 14" screen or smaller with a DVD drive and the guts of a CoreDuo Mini including the DVD drive and....... drum roll please......... an integrated iPod dock. Primarily aimed at the youth market/ college dorm room etc. Wireless keyboard/mouse, wi-fi for content delivery, SATA, USB2, FW400, no second monitor but decent video card for gaming. Optional TV tuner.
#2 A high end version could be built around iMac CoreDuo internals. Attache case form factor. Think flat planar speakers that fold over the display to protect it. Maybe Hi-Def wide-screen w/built in digital tuner. Gamers video. HDMI out, digital audio in/out and for God's sake Apple, give us a couple of RCA analog I/Os!!! That way it's usable with existing equipment, other mp3 devices and by satellite radio subscribers.
Your comments?
I caught the LOTR's quote, vern. Nice. This HI-FI Looks very NICE. Now apple needs to come up with better earbuds. The cheap white ones SUCK, SUCK, SUCK! You have to have them positioned exactly right or the sound is junk. And my ears are not shaped funny, I've had many earbuds and never this problem. There shape in all wrong. I use sony's noise cancelling buds. Only 40 bucks and the sound in WAY better. I would like to step up to a fancy mid level for about 150-200 bucks. Any suggestions?
That's what it's about.
None of the current offerings have a serious subwoofer that won't rattle and can be battery powered.
It's about selling something that actually sounds good to all the groups of people hanging out in the various parks and playgrounds shooting hoops and playing handball. Or the various Cisco/Night Train parties lurking in the back allies. Think NYC where there is a city park or playground (or alley) at least every few blocks.
The reason Apple does it is very simple. They wish to drive momentum. Granted there are third party products, but unless the big players do something in any business, market penetration is not reached. Believe it or not, I feel that the iPod Hi-Fi will drive sales for all of the third party speaker vendors, not steal from them. Perhaps 20% of people have considered a living room speaker system for the iPod—now 70% have. They need the momentum to carry them further into the living room so they can introduce more products in that area of the home. Third party alone doesn't provide enough.
There are a few aspects abotu the iPod hifi that are different then the others in the market and may have been overlooked. (1) the Apple unit has a optical input (not totally unique but how many of the others have one) and (2) the width of the unit is 17", which makes it perfect for mounting in a 19" equipment rack. Granted, these features wil appeal only to small number of buyers, but isn't that the same situation with the individual iPod speakers... after all each is designed and appeals to different buyers
I was in the Boston Apple Store recently and they had a row of the various competing iPod audio accessories including Apple's iPod Hi-Fi. A guy was trying the various offerings out and I was a little disappointed with the sound on the Hi-Fi. The offerings from Bose and Altec Lansing were much clearer.
However, the only one you could really take to the local park or basketball court was the iPod Hi-Fi (I didn't see a DLO iBoom so can't comment on that). I think this is the market the iPod Hi-Fi is best suited as opposed to true high quality audio reproduction in a relatively small space.
As an aside, I saw a high number of iPod posters around Boston. South Station was completely covered in them.
Calling it the HiFi is a bit of a contradiction considering that the quality of all your song files are comprimised once you put them in your ipod, yeah you might have all wav files on your itunes list but they all get converted to m4a once you put them on your ipod. With that being said your never going to get the best quality sound coming from your ipod, hook your real "hi fi" system up to your computer if you want to get the best possible sound, unless you play all mp3's on your computer as well, then you probably dont give a crap about sound and you dont need something called the ipod hi fi.
They need to produce another model with AirTunes built in. A unit that can be plugged in anywhere in the house, controlled by remote control, but music played from your computer instead of your iPod. Some households could probably make use of a number of these, one in the kitchen, lounge, dining room. One for the garden, garage etc.
The Mac Observer Reader Specials
- Download Typestyler, still the Ultimate Styling Tool for Internet, Print and Video Graphics. Works great in Classic with a Native OS X Version on the way. Free Tryout: www.typestyler.com
New MacPro Memory 800Mhz With Apple Spec Heat Sink - 2GB $62 / 4GB $82 / 8GB $158. Click to Maximize your Macs...
Mac observers can now play Party Poker for Mac as well as Mac casino games by going to MacPokerOnline.com.
RamJet Memory: Upgrade a MacBook to 4GB RAM for $99! Add a 320G MacBook Hard Drive for $73! MacBook Pro 17" 8GB Kits Available Now! Click hereFor the latest Apple products use Ciao a comparison website to find laptops like MacBook Air. Then find the best prices on MP3 players and use our comparison tool to evaluate cell phones.
Laptop Hardware Provided by TechRestore - Overnight Mac & iPod Repairs.
