{"id":713,"date":"2008-08-28T13:49:44","date_gmt":"2008-08-28T17:49:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/?p=713"},"modified":"2008-08-28T13:49:44","modified_gmt":"2008-08-28T17:49:44","slug":"why-fill-in-the-gadget-killers-dont-actually-kill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/why-fill-in-the-gadget-killers-dont-actually-kill\/","title":{"rendered":"Why fill-in-the-gadget-killers don&#8217;t actually kill"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Every now and then in the tech news I see a new product announced as the <i>fill-in-the-blank<\/i>-killer. The most commonly touted is the supposed iPod-killer, though I&#8217;ve also seen supposed Macbook Air-killers, supposed Eee-killers, and supposed Google-killers. <\/p>\n<p> The idea that some new product on the horizon is going to metaphorically &#8220;kill&#8221; some well-established industry-dominant product may make great news, but it&#8217;s also based on a faulty assumption that people buy or use products based on the products&#8217; relative quality or features. <\/p>\n<p> iPods aren&#8217;t popular because they are the best MP3 players on the market, even if you believe they are best. Google isn&#8217;t popular because it is the best search engine available, even if you believe it is the best. Whether iPods or Google is &#8220;the best&#8221; is irrelevant. Being &#8220;the best&#8221; may <i>help<\/i> the products or services retain their popularity, but it isn&#8217;t the primary reason they remain popular. It&#8217;s not workmanship and features. It&#8217;s entrenchment. It&#8217;s brand-name recognition. It&#8217;s also ignorance. <\/p>\n<p> Do you know how many times I&#8217;ve had people assume my Sandisk player is a new kind of iPod? Do you know how many times people get confused when I tell them I don&#8217;t have an iPod? They seriously wonder how I&#8217;m able to listen to music. The furrowed brow almost says, &#8220;Is it possible he still listens to a Walkman&#8230; or listens to only records?&#8221; There are great things about iPods, I won&#8217;t deny. I love the circle scroll wheel, and I have to say they just look pretty. That said, they don&#8217;t have radios (and I&#8217;m not going to pay $50&mdash;the entire cost of my Sandisk player&mdash;to get some add-on that will allow an iPod to play the radio), don&#8217;t have a microphone, and won&#8217;t support drag-and-drop of music (you need a program like iTunes to manage your music transfers). <\/p>\n<p> You could make a case by feature comparisons that many other MP3 players on the market are &#8220;better&#8221; than the iPods Apple produces. Maybe they can play more music formats. Maybe the sound is &#8220;better&#8221; for audiophiles. Maybe the battery life is longer. Maybe the screen is bigger. It doesn&#8217;t really matter. Most iPod owners I know (not all, of course) own an iPod because that&#8217;s all they know, and they don&#8217;t want to spend hours researching all the relatively unknown alternatives. iPods are convenient and &#8220;everybody&#8221; has them. They&#8217;re a safe bet. And that&#8217;s all people really want, a safe bet and what they&#8217;re used to. <\/p>\n<p> I&#8217;ve been using Google for years now, and the only time I even considered switching was when the news announced the supposed Google-killer called Cuil. I thought I&#8217;d give it a shot, did two searches that turned up no results, and then I switched back to Google. Is it possible that there are better search engines out there than Google? It&#8217;s possible, definitely. Do I want to try every single search engine until I find &#8220;the best&#8221; one? No. Google is what I&#8217;m used to, and it works for me. <\/p>\n<p> This is human nature, I think. No one has the time to test out every single option for every single thing they do. You can do a reasonable amount of research before making a choice, especially for big-ticket items (where to attend university, what car to purchase, which house to put a down payment on), but you wouldn&#8217;t have any time to live your life if you looked at every single shirt available before buying a shirt, tried every single search engine before picking one, read reviews for every single book before choosing one to read, and studied every restaurant&#8217;s menu before eating at one. <\/p>\n<p> It&#8217;s for this very reason that I don&#8217;t try to &#8220;convert&#8221; Windows users to Linux. I think Linux is a great alternative to Windows under many circumstances, but if people are happy with Windows and used to it, they should be left alone with their choice. I certainly would get annoyed if people said, &#8220;You&#8217;re using Google still? What a sheep you are. You should use <i>fill-in-the-blank<\/i> search engine instead. It&#8217;s much better.&#8221; I know it&#8217;s <i>possible<\/i> there are better search engines out there. I just don&#8217;t see the need to change right now. Google works for me. <\/p>\n<p> Now, that said, if someone complains about her iPod stinking and she wishes it had X, Y, and Z features, I&#8217;d be the first to suggest a non-Apple player. And if Google started turning up crappy search results, I&#8217;d be the first to ask, &#8220;Is there a better search engine than Google?&#8221; For something to &#8220;kill&#8221; the product or service I&#8217;m used to, it has to do a lot more than just be &#8220;better&#8221; or have extra features. It&#8217;s not easy to depose a king by promising to be a better king. A revolution against the current tyrant usually has to happen first.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Every now and then in the tech news I see a new product announced as the fill-in-the-blank-killer. The most commonly touted is the supposed iPod-killer, though I&#8217;ve also seen supposed Macbook Air-killers, supposed Eee-killers, and supposed Google-killers. The idea that some new product on the horizon is going to metaphorically &#8220;kill&#8221; some well-established industry-dominant product&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/why-fill-in-the-gadget-killers-dont-actually-kill\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Why fill-in-the-gadget-killers don&#8217;t actually kill<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[425,139,424,426,324],"class_list":["post-713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-computers","tag-eee-killer","tag-gadgets","tag-ipod-killer","tag-macbook-air-killer","tag-technology","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/713","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=713"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/713\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":720,"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/713\/revisions\/720"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.psychocats.net\/ubuntucat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}