Creative unveils Vision:M video iPod killer

[Elliott]

From what I'm gathering from that (retarded) patent, Creative holds the patent to hierarchical organization by any means of metadata on a portable media player? Now how can you hold the patent for basically just copying an idea that was around for ages into a stupid MP3 player?

While we're at it, why not sue Microsoft for the way the Portable Media Center OS organizes music (also hierarchical). Just because you use that OS on a bulky piece of crap entitles it to immunity from the wrath that is the American legal system? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways, Creative, especially since Apple doesn't run a monopoly on the iPod.

[icecaveman]

jagedEdge blame it on the US patent system...

Microsoft and Creative in many ways are partners, they benefit from each other in terms of portable media players so it would be a bad move from Creative to try anything against Microsoft.

[Elliott]

jagedEdge blame it on the US patent system...

Microsoft and Creative in many ways are partners, they benefit from each other in terms of portable media players so it would be a bad move from Creative to try anything against Microsoft.

I suppose you're right. I swear I've never seen anything more non-sensical than that patent though, and the lawsuit Creative is putting up with it. I'm hoping the court invalidates that patent if Apple puts up a good enough argument (granted Apple argues anything; Apple settles a lot).

[aristotle-dude]

First of all Creative released that interface on a Zen before the original iPod... They also have the patent for it...

I cannot see how they can have a patent on it if they are licensing the same OS as the iPod (Portalplayer).

As for battery life. Be very wary of the claims of any company. Do they say under what conditions they get that amount of time?

I'm puzzled how they could sue Apple for an interface they have licensed from another party and it appears that creative is also a licensee.

[icecaveman]

I cannot see how they can have a patent on it if they are licensing the same OS as the iPod (Portalplayer).

As for battery life. Be very wary of the claims of any company. Do they say under what conditions they get that amount of time?

I'm puzzled how they could sue Apple for an interface they have licensed from another party and it appears that creative is also a licensee.

Where do you have details about that? And then can you tell me why Creative offering their own SDK to others? BTW even if they would use the same OS that does not have to contain the same interface

[aristotle-dude]

Where do you have details about that? And then can you tell me why Creative offering their own SDK to others? BTW even if they would use the same OS that does not have to contain the same interface

Are you talking about this player or previous players?

You are right, the interface does not have to look the same but for some reason, they felt the need to copy the iPod's skin for PortalPlayer.

Regardless, there is no merit suing Apple over Portal Player.

[Matt T]

You forget that Apple is getting sued from creative for copying their UI. Creative had a patent on it and the ipods still used it ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the iPod's UI come out before any other Creative player, but Creative patented it before Apple?

[icecaveman]

@aristotle-dude then why did Apple request almost the same patent as Creative if it's all about PortalPlayer? Creative did not use PortalPlayer when they requested that patent or I'm pretty sure they did not, they had some in-house brewage.

@Matt T no Creative was around a year before.

But yeah this is very silly patent no matter who holds it, the only thing I like about that is because of it people can't claim Apple came up with something they didn't.

[tonicx]

I was about to get a ipod 5g this christmas, but now think Vision:M is worth the wait.

[evo0o]

iPod killer, haha, that's a good one. I have had friends who bought Creative Zen/ Touch over the past few months, within 3 months of purchasing, all Creative stuff either needed servicing of some sort or just totally failed.

Don't get me wrong, they take care of their stuff well. It's just that Creative isn't up to that standard yet. They merely copy designs. Yes their speakers/ sound cards are good, just focus on something ._.

[l77Il7H]

ipod killer, lol. :laugh: good one.

[Bitey]

Hmmm....lets see.

Has this much over the pod:

*screen resolution(twice the resolution)

*Colors of the screen 262k compared to 65k.

*video playback time

*codec support(WMV9/DivX/VidX/MPEG4)

*extra features: FM, recording, etc.

*picture viewing - zoom and pan

*custom equalizer(very important for sound quality)

*Doesn't scratch like crap

*Superior sound quality(97db)

*Same battery life for audio, twice as much for video

*Support for the WMA, DRM stores

Argue the specs, apple users. Don't fall back on, "well, apple is hellz easy. I'm retarded and I can hook my ipod up". Good for you, but anyone that has a IQ over about 80 can figure out how to hook the creative player up. Anyone that acctually does their homework finds that this creative player is superior.

Guess that means-

Uniformed people, that are unable to use technology= buy ipod

Informed people, that are able to use technology= buy this new player

Just using your own arguement.....

[kiall]

that is one ugly mp3 player the ipods look classy

[xxdesmus]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the iPod's UI come out before any other Creative player, but Creative patented it before Apple?

That would be correct, but that doesn't mean jack for Apple. Creative still owns the patent for the UI, end of story.

[Von_Beard]

i love it and i want one :)

[NY1]

Hmmm....lets see.

Has this much over the pod:

*screen resolution(twice the resolution)

*Colors of the screen 262k compared to 65k.

*video playback time

*codec support(WMV9/DivX/VidX/MPEG4)

*extra features: FM, recording, etc.

*picture viewing - zoom and pan

*custom equalizer(very important for sound quality)

*Doesn't scratch like crap

*Superior sound quality(97db)

*Same battery life for audio, twice as much for video

*Support for the WMA, DRM stores

Argue the specs, apple users. Don't fall back on, "well, apple is hellz easy. I'm retarded and I can hook my ipod up". Good for you, but anyone that has a IQ over about 80 can figure out how to hook the creative player up. Anyone that acctually does their homework finds that this creative player is superior.

Guess that means-

Uniformed people, that are unable to use technology= buy ipod

Informed people, that are able to use technology= buy this new player

Just using your own arguement.....

Like I said in the other thread, your so-called specs are completely wrong.

*screen resolution(twice the resolution) - Wrong

*Colors of the screen 262k compared to 65k. - Wrong

Just to name a couple.

It's funny how you don't mention the fact that the creative player is twice as thick as the iPod video and has a higher cost.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

Guess that means-

Uniformed people, that are unable to use technology= buy ipod

Informed people, that are able to use technology= buy this new player

Just using your own arguement.....

So using your own post I guess you would be getting an iPod since you can't even get the specs right, Good job, what a witty creative, and smart post, golden star for you!!! :rolleyes:

Anyhow, I could care less what people buy, people buy what they like and those who get the Creative player will get it because they like it or hate the iPod. No need to flame and be stupid like *cough* certain trolls lingering around. I think this player is a pathetic copy of the new iPod, simple as that. But if people buy it then thats their choice and who is to say they are less of a person.

An informed person makes the decision on their own and ignores crap that I quoted. I am informed about technology and got an iPod because I liked it over what creative and the others had to offer. I liked the interface on the iPod over that of the others and since I was getting it for my music library, not radio or voice recording, then I chose what I thought would suit me best. That didn't make me less informed about technology, that was just personal choice.

[Fonze]

Anyhow, I could care less what people buy, people buy what they like and those who get the Creative player will get it because they like it or hate the iPod. No need to flame and be stupid like *cough* certain trolls lingering around. I think this player is a pathetic copy of the new iPod, simple as that. But if people buy it then thats their choice and who is to say they are less of a person.

An informed person makes the decision on their own and ignores crap that I quoted. I am informed about technology and got an iPod because I liked it over what creative and the others had to offer. I liked the interface on the iPod over that of the others and since I was getting it for my music library, not radio or voice recording, then I chose what I thought would suit me best. That didn't make me less informed about technology, that was just personal choice.

Some people made informed choices to buy an iPod. But a lot of people that buy iPods are either Mac people, so it is their only choice, or aren't tech savy enough to make an informed decision, so they go with whatever is popular or cool.

When the Creative Nomad Jukebox came out it was big and looked like a diskman. When the iPod came out about a year later, it was nice looking and had most functionality of the Nomad Jukebox. Mac people went out and bought the iPod because they loved the brand and thought the technology was cool. Most PC users did not go out and get a Nomad Jukebox, I would say most didn't even hear about it because Creative had almost 0 marketing in the US at the time. Moving on from there, Apple made incremental improvements to the iPod over the next few years knowing Mac people would buy it, but also making it look cool so that people that were trendy or liked nice looking things would buy into it. As of right now, people who buy an iPod are not buying it for the technology (tech specs), they are buying it for the experience and culture they become part of through buying one.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

Not all Mac people have to buy iPods. I happen to be a Mac user but I was part of the halo effect and bought my Mac after I got my iPod. Sure a lot of people do buy it because they think its trendy but that does not make it a bad device at all.

[JoDaddy]

I was going to get a Zen Micro Photo, but after reading review I decided against it. The biggest problem was the screen. It was way too dark. And how many pictures do you take that are square? They should make the screen optimum for pictures and video, especially if that's the name of the device. Also, it can't cost more than the iPod. Take a lesson from Microsoft, Creative: you have to offer a great deal before you can demand a great price.

[Chad]

What a great strategy. If you can't win with your products, sue all your competitors. Creative, as a company in general, is about as bad as they come.

An excerpt from a BBC article

Creative chairman Sim Wong Hoo told the BBC News website that the company was already talking to various parties about the patent but refused to be drawn on specifics.

"We will pursue all manufacturers that use the same navigation system," said Mr Sim. "This is something we will pursue aggressively.

So he's going to sue every MP3 manufacturer out there? This is a non-issue. Prior art will win out and the court will invalidate the patent.

[Syphonic]

I don't own an iPod, but doesn't that UI look exactly like the one on the iPod?

My first thought exactly.

Thred title should say 'video iPod competitor' or 'rival'

[Berserk87]

how much will the creative one cost...

[Fonze]

What a great strategy. If you can't win with your products, sue all your competitors. Creative, as a company in general, is about as bad as they come.

An excerpt from a BBC article

So he's going to sue every MP3 manufacturer out there? This is a non-issue. Prior art will win out and the court will invalidate the patent.

So, if Creative adopted the click wheel into their products, you think Apple wouldn't sue them over it? The UI navigation is visual, the click wheel is physical. Both are patentable, and right now Creative holds the patent.

[Chad]

You can patent them, but if there is prior art (previous usage by others), it won't hold up in court.

The US patent system will pretty much give you a patent for anything.