|
I know it's an aging topic, but I can't help jumping in with some points.
First, the iPod didn't really gain the perception of the "standard" mp3 player by being first, or having more storage, or having a sleek design (though the latter two were considerations). The flash memory-based devices at the time the iPod came out were much cheaper than the iPod was at its release, and if I remember correctly, Creative had mp3 players out there with hard drives by then as well. What helped the iPod was the iTunes Music Store.
At that time, DRM was an insanely controversial topic. This was a period when the music industry was so concerned about pirated music that they were releasing music CDs that couldn't play on PCs, and were suing old ladies and children for using Napster. What Apple provided was a surprise compromise with major music publishers that allowed for minimal DRM and an easy way to get music onto a device. The iPod's popularity followed from the store and the ease with which you could transfer from the store to the device. While it was possible to get music from the store onto other players (since you could burn an audio CD and re-rip to mp3 format), people were willing to pay a premium for an easy way to get their music (a quick purchase rather than haphazard Napster searches or CD ripping), combined with an easy way to put their music libraries onto a portable device. It was a major change in both digital content acquisition and portable music device use.
With that in mind, my second point: The eBook readers aren't really analogous to the mp3 player market. Apple already had the "how do we sell this stuff online" revolution, and it translated easily to the eBook market. Ease of transfer is important for eBooks but not as important, since most people will only need to move one or two book files at a time onto a reader (compared to eight or twelve music files per album), and will typically just read a book from beginning to end (rather than wanting features like playlists and randomized playback).
Mobi had a store and an easy to use client for PCs and some mobile devices, but it didn't translate into market control for them. Sony had a store that was easy to access and transfer books from as well. Amazon upped the ante when they made their device capable of going online just about anywhere to get books and content (great for impulse buys), but while that plus their name recognition has helped them, it hasn't translated into the "de facto standard" status Apple enjoys with the iPod.
Now, what this means in the long run I don't know. My pet theory on how the Kindle could have enjoyed more success in running away with the market is that Amazon tied it too closely with their online store, but it's simply speculation. The iPod was just as easy to use with normal mp3 and aac music files as it was with the iTunes DRMed files, which made it a cinch for people to switch from other players. The Kindle didn't have the luxury of targeting a "default" eBook format like the iPod did with mp3s, and as I understand it getting most non-store items onto a Kindle involves emailing them for conversion. It makes it harder to draw early adopters into your fold when they have to abandon the content they already own (like DRMed mobi or eReader files). Heck, I'm going through that right now - I want to move away from my Cybook Gen3, but I have a lot of Mobi-DRMed content now that I'd have to sacrifice to move to a newer and more popular reader device. Since I'd be starting pretty fresh either way, there isn't a strong reason for me to choose a Kindle over a Sony, a Nook, or another device.
It also doesn't help that, as I said, Apple already had the big store revolution. All Amazon could do was refine it some. Simply supporting open formats isn't enough either, since there are plenty of devices that have been handling text, html, and pdf files for a while now. And on top of all that, eBook readers don't have a substantial advantage for most potential users over their older counterparts. MP3 players were attractive because they could hold much more than CDs or tapes, so instead of playing a half hour of music on a compact device you could play a couple hours' worth on even a low-end MP3 player. eBook readers are great for carrying around lots of books, sure, but when you compare the "time" you get from them compared to paper books there isn't as much advantage - a paperback can entertain you for hours, enough to cover you for the day until you replace it when you get home. It's great that the content on an eBook reader could cover you for days, it's just not as big a difference in convenience over a regular book.
Maybe there never will be a dominant eBook device manufacturer, just an eventual DRM standard. It would be nice to have devices competing on features and price rather than efforts to tie people into particular stores, anyway.
And now I'll get back to what I was doing - comparing readers to see which one suits my current needs, since if I wait for something that might be the one to serve my future needs best I'll never buy anything. It's too much like computers in that regard - sure, if I wait six months something better will probably be around for the same price, but then I wouldn't have been using anything for those six months either...
|