
Ask HN: Why is there no competitor to the iPod Touch? - makeramen
Is there a viable competitor that I'm missing?<p>And why do other vendors think they can compete with the iPad if they can't compete with the iPod Touch? The iPad after all, is partly so successful simply due to the fact that "it's a big iPod Touch."
======
portman
Anyone who can manufacture an iPod Touch competitor can also manufacture an
iPhone competitor. So, in order to choose to compete with the iPod Touch, the
manufacturer would have to believe their profits would be higher than if they
built a phone.

This is unlikely, because:

    
    
      (1) Phones are more expensive. ($400-$800 vs $200-$400)
      (2) Carriers help market the phone.
      (3) Carriers handle telephone support.
    

For the manufacturer, making a phone offers both _higher revenues_ and _lower
costs_.

It would seem that the only company with an incentive to manufacture a viable
iPod Touch competitor is Google. But they don't have any manufacturing
capabilities.

Of the three points, I suspect (1) is most important, which is why you're
seeing iPad competitors but no iPod Touch competitors.

~~~
hapless
The iPod Touch is successful specifically because it is a non-phone device
that resembles a really hip phone. It appeals to many people who are not
interested in paying for a high-end service plan.

So here's the underlying question: Why is it that no Android handset or
Blackberry is made available without the cellular equipment ? What's special
about the iPhone/Touch that it can hack it as a lifestyle gadget?

(P.S. Samsung Galaxy Tab doesn't count. It's not even close to the same form
factor as the Galaxy S.)

~~~
corin_
"The iPod Touch is successful specifically because it is a non-phone device
that resembles a really hip phone."

Disagree. From my personal view, I have an iPod Touch and love it, but I'm
really not a fan of the iPhone (I have a blackberry, and if I were to look for
a non-blackberry, iPhone wouldn't be near the top of my list). From a non-
personal point of view, iPod Touch was popular long before iPhones existed, so
you can't explain its popularity with "it looks like an iPhone".

------
eogas
The Zune HD seems to have been designed to be a competitor to the iPod touch.
I think their main failure was not hyping it up enough. However, with the
onset of Windows Phone 7, we may see a bit more hype on the horizon.

Archos has some touch devices that look pretty sweet, though they aren't
exactly a household name.

Cowon has the S9, which seems to have been designed around the same idea as
the iPod touch, but they're even lesser known than Archos.

Creative probably has something too. I think it mostly comes down to the fact
that Apple has ridiculous name recognition when it comes to mp3 players. Most
of the players I mentioned are better featured and more "open" than an iPod
touch, which sounds great to hackers and tech enthusiasts, but normal people
want something that is simple, shiny, and recognizable (trendy). And Apple has
their fists clenched tightly around that market.

------
byoung2
The closest thing I can think of is Zune, but Microsoft couldn't seem to get
that right. They're the only company that could have, but they failed.

A big part of the appeal of the iPod Touch is that it runs apps from the App
Store. It would be easy to make a media player that does most of what the iPod
Touch does, but a real competitor would have a very tough time overcoming the
app store barrier to entry. So your only real choice is Android as far as the
apps go.

So the question is why haven't there been any Android versions of the iPod
Touch? I don't have an answer for this one. It could be that only Apple is in
a position to sell a product for the price of a smartphone (up to $400)
without the phone part. In that same price range you can buy most Android
phones without a contract (the Evo 4G is $449 no contract), so maybe anyone
who would have bought an Android version of the iPod Touch just gets a phone.

Also, considering the price of the iPhone ($500-$700 without contract) vs iPod
Touch ($230-$400), it could be that Apple sells the iPod Touch at a loss and
makes up the difference with App Store sales and iAd revenue. A 3rd party
would not be able to do this.

~~~
justrudd
"Microsoft couldn't seem to get that right" - I think the depends on your
definition of "right" is :)

The hardware and UI of the software on the Zune are (IMO) better than the iPod
Touch. I enjoy the visuals of the Zune playback. I love scrolling through my
artists, albums, etc. on the Zune compared to the iPod. I believe they did get
that right.

I also love the Zune Marketplace. For example, I love the song "No Heaven" by
Champion. Which lead me to a group called Bane. The first few listens of Bane
were good. But I soon grew tired of them. They didn't have the replay value
that Champion does (to me. I mean no offense to any fans). In the iTunes
model, I would have to buy the music and be stuck with music I don't like. So
I think that Microsoft got it right there. I know there are others that do
streaming as well Last.fm, GrooveShark, etc. but I think (or least I thought)
that Microsoft had the leverage and money to get a comprehensive streaming
library the size of iTunes and/or Amazon MP3. And this gets into the areas
where I think they failed...

Their marketing didn't exist. The only commercial I remember is some kid that
traded a song with a convenience store clerk. And the only reason I remember
it is because of the groan that came out of the audience that saw the
commercial. I don't recall what Zune called the music sharing, but it was a
stupid word. And the commercial forced its use.

And the other big fail - it feels like a hobby to Microsoft. It feels like a
product that they don't care if it succeeds or not. If it does, great. If not,
whatever. It's hard to get excited about a product that a company isn't even
excited about.

~~~
beaumartinez
The Zune isn't available in Europe...

~~~
gamble
Or Canada. They even sold the original Zune here, then pulled out when the
Zune HD was released.

~~~
kenjackson
So what's the reason things in the US often don't get made available in
Canada? Are there some specific laws that are difficult? Tariffs? Seems like
Canada would be about the easiest market to be in for a US company (after the
US).

~~~
winthrowe
Speaking with no authority besides that of annoyed Canadian, I think the
"After the US" is the key issue. Most of the laws I'm aware of tend to deal
with the stereotypical Canadian things (Media/Canadian content, natural
resources). I can't offhand think of many things that are available in the US
and Europe, but not in Canada. It appears to me that the extra effort to set
up international sales just for Canada is rarely undertaken until the home
zone (US/EU) is taken care of, and then Canada is included when they go
'worldwide', if they do.

------
FiddlerClamp
Archos has several nice players which also run apps, but their primary
attraction is being able to play virtually any type of video without re-
encoding.

Negatives: poor support for older models and charging extra for codec packs.

~~~
MC27
Yeah, Archos is the main company I can think of, at least in Europe. They
pretty much pioneered the portable MP3 player market years before Apple.
Archos' main problem is they like to control everything and aren't that good
at finishing/refining their software, which is why the whole Rockbox scene
started and produced amazing firmware for the early players.

------
basicxman
Nintendo DS? PSP? No they're not a feature to feature equivalent but they're
there. PSP Go was meant to be a competitor anyways.

------
danilocampos
Half the juice of the iPod touch is Apple's wildly successful distribution
channel, iTunes/App Store. Games are huge on that device.

Android's app offerings, especially in gaming, aren't nearly as mature.
There's also more junk in their store (though obviously the App Store has its
share of junk, too).

So absent phone functionality, I'm not sure how exciting a phone-less Android
device could be, except for geek noodling and hackery. I'd buy one for that,
but I'm hardly the mainstream audience they'd need for success.

Meanwhile, the iPad is very satisfying for web browsing alone. It just feels
good to directly interact with a large region of content. The apps are again a
big part of its power, but more power comes from its satisfying physical UI.
It's an idea worth stealing, but competitors will need to make their OS
integration airtight to truly challenge the iPad.

------
Pewpewarrows
Everyone that I know essentially takes this stance:

If you want a dedicated music device, an old-fashioned large storage (and
nowadays cheap) iPod is more than perfect.

If you want a full-featured device with a large touch-screen and some internet
capabilities, no one wants to carry an extra device along with their phone, so
they just look for a phone with those features.

I personally just prefer the all-in-one phone, multimedia, and internet touch
screen device. I don't want 2-3 decently sized gadgets in my pockets all the
time.

~~~
portman
That may very well be true for you, but over 35,000,000 iPod Touch customers
disagree with you.

------
Qz
The main thing that drives the Touch is the fact that it's connected to
iTunes, with all the music and apps. Android phones can compete with the
iPhone, because like it or not, Music/Apps are still largely secondary to why
people buy phones: voice calls and text messaging. I chose Droid over iPhone
partly because i can get it much cheaper on my Verizon family plan (also,
unlimited data), and I _need_ a phone, I don't _need_ an iPod Touch..

But to really, viably, compete with the iPod Touch, you need three things:

    
    
      1) An as good music experience as iTunes.  So far, no one has that.
      2) An almost as good App Store.  Android market is maybe the closest, but it's still way off.
      3) Something else truly magical that iPod Touch doesn't have.
    

No one else right now is really capable of hitting one of those 3 things, let
alone all of them.

------
kloncks
The most obvious two that could have killer iPod Touch-like products are Palm
and Google (Android):

1\. Palm's in trouble with just its phone. It seems like they have to figure
out their webOS phones first before launching something like this.

2\. Google's problem is the same issue they ran into with the Nexus One.
Google doesn't do retail. It doesn't like retail. An Android phone can easily
be sold by the Carriers. Gladly. An Android media player, however, needs to be
sold in retail. And that means offering things like a store, or agreements,
and telephone support, returns, etc.

Apple, on the other hand, understands retail and does it well (see Apple
Stores and website), as well as already have a killer phone on the market.

~~~
Qz
I would put HTC at the top of that list. They make the best Android hardware
I've seen so far, and seem pretty good at UI and marketing as well.

~~~
grkhetan
And Samsung. Because I hear they are indeed coming out with a phone-less
version of Android... but they would have to wait atleast a few months, since
current android 2.2 _requires_ phone functionality to be present (from what I
hear), and 3.0 will remove that restriction. And hence true competitors to
ipad and iphone touch will happen then (around end of year). Current android
tablets like Samsung Galaxy Tab have a phone built-in, which is unnatural.
Anyway, with 3.0 release I think you can expect several ipod touch competitors
by first quarter of next year -- beginning from a device by Samsung and
probably expanding to other mfgrs like HTC, Motorola, Dell, etc. -- all using
android.

------
Someone
Viable? Time will tell, but Philips has something on the horizon:

[http://pulse.philips.com/blog/2010/08/31/philips-gogear-
conn...](http://pulse.philips.com/blog/2010/08/31/philips-gogear-connect-
first-android-mp4-player/)

~~~
Raphael
Wow, sounds nice.

------
benatkin
On Quora, this question would probably be filed under "Questions That Contain
Assertions".

There are competitors. They either don't get it, don't have the talent needed
to produce what the marketers would like to produce, or some combination of
the two.

I wonder why there aren't more competitors, though. I think the main reason is
that Android device companies are more focused on getting the phone right.

------
pietrofmaggi
At this moment only Samsung has the strength to go directly against Apple in
this market.

At last IFA they presented the Samsung Galaxy Play 50 based on Android 2.1:
[http://www.ibladi.com/2010/09/samsung-unveils-the-galaxy-
pla...](http://www.ibladi.com/2010/09/samsung-unveils-the-galaxy-play-50/)

------
fady
"The iPad after all, is partly so successful simply due to the fact that "it's
a big iPod Touch."

...and the speed!!! The A4 processor in the iPad makes the iPhone 4 seem slow,
even though they both use A4 chips. Maybe its hard to compete with a great OS
+ good hardware...

------
venturebros
The iPod Touch is a pocket pc with the OS done right. With that said 6+ years
ago there were plenty of devices similar to the iPod Touch. I had a Dell Axim
but I ended up selling it when the iPod Touch came out because I like the iOS
more.

------
necrecious
iPod Touch is really interesting from an educational perspective. I am working
with two different school districts who are using iPod Touches instead of
netbooks.

The amount of functionality you get for the price is amazing. The lockdown
nature of Apple products is actually a benefit in this sector.

The lack of competition here will mean Apple have a head start on marketing to
children starting in elementary school.

------
orenmazor
my favourite part about the comments this is going to get is that your
question is going to be perceived completely differently by a lot of people.
I'm seeing comments from people who immediately assumed you meant "competitors
for the ipod touch, the game platform" and people who think you meant
"competitors for the ipod touch, the media player".

------
Raphael
Good question. I had to score a Motorola Droid off eBay and put in a decent
microSD card to fill this void.

------
blender
Nokia N810. And it does flash.

Granted, things were getting a bit sluggish in terms of web browsing on this
device with the native (Firefox-derived) browser but Opera Mobile 10.1 beta
version for Maemo in Turbo mode (using Opera proxies) has given this device
new life.

Cheers

------
TotlolRon
Easy. It is an iPod. It is just a music player. Nothing to see here. Move on
competitors. Move on.

~~~
portman
Huh? It's an iOS device, and as such, supports 250,000 apps. It's hardly "just
a music player".

~~~
TotlolRon
Really? Can it play Angry Birds too?

~~~
pohl
I hadn't heard of this game, but it looks fun. And, yes, you could run this on
the iPod Touch.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Birds>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNNzRyd1xz0>

~~~
TotlolRon
Great links. Can you find one with a cheat to the golden egg that does the
bird piano?

[Hint: sent from my iPod Touch]

~~~
pohl
The sarcasm was obvious but i chose to ignore it because it is poison to
forums and rarely done well.

~~~
TotlolRon
It wasn't sarcasm. It was a shortened version of the argument that, among
other things, the iPod Touch is the most important device in the iOS product
line and it has always been the case. As such, Apple carefully positioned it
as that it will be as invisible as possible (for example sale numbers are
bundled with iPods not iPhones) while it slowly grows to become "the one". The
decoy was apparently good enough that even Google failed to notice the
opportunity. They made the Nexus free from carrier but not free from phone
parts. Or, it was, generally speaking, some argument along these line. But
since long arguments lead to useless arguments, they may become poison to this
"forum". So I avoid. Most of time. Now you owe me 8 upvotes. [sent from a
Chrome browser NOT on the ChromeTouch].

~~~
pohl
I was refering to how your post said something ("It is just a music player.
Nothing to see here.") which was the opposite of your intended meaning ("the
iPod Touch is the most important device in the iOS product line"), emphasizing
how unbelievable or unlikely it would have sounded if taken literally, thereby
illustrating the obvious nature of your intended meaning.

That's what I picked up on, but ignored.

~~~
TotlolRon
If there are two lines: read between them. If there is only one: TL;DR;

~~~
pohl
Until now it escaped me that your username is an anagram for "to troll on".

