Upcoming Sony Walkman to butt heads with Apple's iPod nano?

The word from "credible sources" is that Sony isn't just keeping itself busy making brash claims about PS3 availability, building iPod docks and churning out aesthetically-challenged home integration gear. Nope, Sony's got a biggie in the oven, a flash player of 2, 4 and 8GB capacities ostensibly designed to kick it with the iPod nano and SanDisk Sansa in mini flash DAP land. What's supposed to make this challenger any more formidable than Sony's previous attempts? The player will retain much of the stylings of Sony's NW-A3000 / NW-A1000 players (pictured), but will take some flat and rectangular cues from Apple, while managing to be smaller than Apple's player. This new Walkman's claim to fame is 8 to 10 hours of video playback, and with battery life being a historically strong point for Sony, and Apple's nano lacking video playback altogether, Sony could very well win some points with this one. The screen will be designed for landscape viewing and will be larger than the nano's. Buttons and interface should be similar to the A3000 series and Sony will have violet, black, blue and pink flavors at launch. Prices should be fairly competitive and the launch is expected to take place in March. That gives us about a month to figure out if this report is pure baloney, but along with ATRACLife's trust in the source, most of these specs are pretty much do-or-die for Sony in the cutthroat PMP space, so we're going to go with "cautiously optimistic" for the moment.

[Mat @ Feb 10th 2007 11:33PM]

It's also going to be compatible with Apple computers and iTunes!

[mb @ Feb 10th 2007 11:26PM]

Could be cool looking, I like the border-less screen concept.

[Ryoma24 @ Feb 10th 2007 11:29PM]

sound a lot like a creative zen v-plus.....

[Spencer @ Feb 10th 2007 11:45PM]

"battery life being a historically strong point for Sony"

Battery death has been a pretty strong point with Sony, too...

[michael @ Feb 10th 2007 11:49PM]

I remember when Walkmans were "the thing". Is this enough to go back to the Walkman? Maybe we'll use something else beside ipods in the next decade. Like Zunes maybe?

[michael @ Feb 11th 2007 2:06AM]

I remember when Walkmans were "the thing". Could this be enough to kill the ipod? Who knows. Walkmans were the 90's. Ipods are this decade. Could even the Zune be in the Next decade?

[ScOObyDoo @ Feb 10th 2007 11:58PM]

Quite an occasion. I think this marks the tenth attempt by Sony to make something that can compete with the iPod.

[Mr. Magoo @ Feb 11th 2007 12:02AM]

Not the first time I've seen 'Sony' and 'butt heads' in the same sentence recently!

[Cowboy_X @ Feb 11th 2007 12:52AM]

unless they have a new interface idea that compares with the clickwheel, they're wasting their time

[Aaron @ Feb 11th 2007 12:31AM]

I'm getting a little tired of flash players, to tell you the truth. Who are these things for? Stupid people? Honestly, I've only seen idiots carrying iPod Nanos. It just isn't very much space, I don't understand why you would want one unless it was really cheap. I mean, if you're a mindless drone and you need a goddamn iPod, you can't exactly complain about the size of the video iPod. Even the 80 GB one is small enough to slip in a pocket.

Anyway, my point is I'm not entirely sure Sony should be trying to compete with the Nano in the first place. Make a good device to compete with the larger, hard drive-based models.

On that note, I think the second Zune (you know it's coming; I'd wager before the end of 2007) might be the thing I've been waiting for to replace my fifth gen iPod...

[Special_K @ Feb 11th 2007 2:59AM]

Okay, Aaron, riddle me this: I have a 15" MacBook Pro (Core Duo), with 100GB of hard disk space. I also have approximately 75GB of RAW images at enormous resolutions (I am a photographer, but I live off a laptop, 'cause I need it for school) and several huge pieces of software. I only have 5GB of music, and then maybe another 10GB of free space on top of that, which I need for images. So, should I drop half a grand for an 80GB iPod? Or should I maybe get a small, sleek, light, iPod nano 8G? Like Will said: we don't all have 80GB of music!

[edwinduh @ Feb 12th 2007 3:29AM]

flash mp3 players are for people who are active. i've broken mp3 players w/ miniHD's like the ipod video just by jogging. my iriver and sansa hold up to all the motion just fine. have fun sitting on your couch w/ your 80GB ipod.

[Paul @ Feb 11th 2007 10:26PM]

Well... I can only assume you've never exercised once in your life... a regular ipod will just not do for (nearly) anyone that runs or does cardio. I know this might seem crazy, but there are other uses for an ipod besides what you choose to use it for.

[Will @ Feb 11th 2007 12:39AM]

yeah, that makes sense Aaron...dont try and compete with something that actually sells! you know, not everybody has 80gb of music. and even if they did, why the hell would they want to carry it all on the same device, there's not that many good songs in the history of music and the majority of people could care less about video functionality. for you to call people who carry nano's idiots makes you a fool, not everyone carries it in their pocket...some people do work out with them and it's quite obnoxious to have an 80gb ipod wrapped around your arm.

[Aaron @ Feb 11th 2007 10:44AM]

I didn't say everyone who has a Nano is an idiot. Just the ones I've personally seen. I also recall saying that I don't understand why you'd want one...unless it was cheap. Which the iPod Nano is not. I don't have 80 gb of music either, not even close, but I'm also not interested in paying several hundred dollars for something that can only hold a handful of albums at good quality. Yeah yeah, I know, it makes me a horrible person, thus the low ranking on my post...

[the PolitikPoet @ Feb 11th 2007 1:48PM]

I dont have 80GB of music nor do i want that much music I use my ipod to move around large files while storing my music simutainouly. All my video and photoshop docs and school work in my pocket. It is very convenient to have that kind of storage in my pocket.!

[Lowest ranked! @ Feb 11th 2007 12:56AM]

sony is stupid!=highest ranked

give sony a chance guys=lowest ranked

[Aaron @ Feb 11th 2007 10:46AM]

Considering the 8 gig Nano and the 30 gig video are the same price, I'm having a hard time understanding why you would go for the lesser model. It's fine if you don't have a shitload of music, neither do I, but when the Nanos are just as expensive as the bigger iPods, how are they worth it? That was my point. I understand some people want a smaller device, both in physical size and capacity, but the Nano does not seem like a good buy at all. As I said in my original post, if they're cheap then hey, sign me up, but they're not.

[Javaflash @ Feb 11th 2007 1:03AM]

Btw, do people really watch videos on screen that small or that's just a feature manufacture tag in to encourage sales. I always wonder.... Personally, I think even video iPod's screen is too small. 15 minutes of Battlestar Galactica, my eyes were ready to quit.

[Ian @ Feb 11th 2007 6:53PM]

In terms of smarts:

Apple > Sony > Aaron

[Aaron @ Feb 12th 2007 10:02AM]

What I said was not unreasonable. The iPod nano is overpriced for what it is. You can all stop being assholes now, thank you.

[Josh Warner @ Feb 11th 2007 1:11AM]

Hmm, that description is almost verbatim of the Meizu Miniplayer M6 (http://miniplayer.info/) except for the 8 gig capacity.

Oh, and Aaron:
Flash players are far superior to their spindle-turning brethren. The only reason hard drive iPods get any decent amount of battery life is because they rate that battery life based on very low bitrate files which can be streamed to a RAM cache only once per half hour or so. The hard drive spends the vast majority of its time spun down, drawing almost no power. While this works OK for 128kbit mp3 or AAC, this is why video (and lossless audio) is so crappy on these same players - suddenly the HD is running constantly, and the battery life consequently takes a sharp nosedive. Flash draws a tiny amount of power constantly during access, and does not have this problem.
Second, durability. HD's are fragile things, and a head crash is a real problem. The only reason this doesn't happen more often to these portable players is because of their battery saving mode which I mentioned above. Those unlucky enough to drop their players while the drive is spun up and reading another burst of data are the ones who get shafted. Again, flash has no moving parts and is incredibly durable. I have a flash drive that has taken a trip through the washer and dryer, and still works fine with no data loss. Can you imagine what would have happened to a portable hard drive?

I don't mean this to be a rant, but more of a short education on why flash is being looked at with so much interest lately. I would much rather have 8 gigs of flash than 80 gigs of hard drive in a portable for my uses (video and lossless audio). I won't be able to hold as much, but I might be able to actually view/hear most of what is on the device in one charge; in contrast the 80 gig iPod would need 30-50 charges to play back all of the video on it if it was full of video.

Which would you prefer?

[Aaron @ Feb 11th 2007 10:45AM]

I definitely understand the advantage to no moving parts and the extended battery life, but why am I the only one who doesn't feel that $200 or so for 2-8 GB is practical? I just don't think they're worth buying at the moment. Believe me, I would take a 4 GB flash player if it was small and cheap (under $120, maybe). But right now, no.

[KOF @ Feb 11th 2007 2:44AM]

Lose SonicStage and DRM restriction on un-DRMed MP3s for playback, then maybe Sony will have a slight chance.

[me duh @ Feb 11th 2007 3:46AM]

now this could easily come off as fanboy-ish but i'm getting the distinct impression these days, even more than before, that if it isn't by apple it really isn't important as a media player. Don't get me wrong, ther are plenty of solutions out there that might not be half bad (i wouldn't know, i'm not much for porable media players, and besides, i'm one of those people who is somewhat bothered by the ipod's interface)but not only is the name recognition in this market absolute, but somehow apple has done something so iconic that trying to beat it at its own game is a losing proposition.

as far as capacity, i'd probably do fine with the large size first gen shuffle, i've got summat like 5gig myself and at least half is superflous, and by the nature of the shuffle i could load everything related to my mood for the day one day and change it the next, hands free so to speak. but as i said i'm not huge on the whole dedicated music player thing, from my perspective there's enough technology in that space that i could theoretically do any on-the-move stuff i want in one device, that's why i'm both excited and dismayed by the iphone, and so often by so many gadgets. They get so many points, but as Tog so well put here: http://www.asktog.com/columns/070iPhoneFirstLook.html "...it now does so much of what I drag around a [whatever] for when travelling, why can't it do the rest? One thing left out and I have to drag around both."

[Sam @ Feb 11th 2007 4:28AM]

Yea, I can't wait to install Sony's crappy software that will be required to transfer music and will do it in the most ass slow way possible.

I'm done with Sony. I've been done with Sony for years.

[semi @ Feb 11th 2007 5:49AM]

looking forward to this..might end up getting my self a dap.. and keep the psp just for gaming

[tekdroid @ Feb 11th 2007 6:16AM]

Dear Sony
Chinese and Korean upstarts are giving you a run for your money. FLAC and Ogg Vorbis is more than a fad. Sonicstage is embarrassing in 2007.

Regards,
Concerned Customer

[Peter Payne @ Feb 11th 2007 8:39AM]

One thing I don't get about all these players -- they may try to beat the iPod, but they can never beat iTunes. Why don't they all hack into the database and make a program that can update playlists from iTunes to their players? It can be done with Applescript on the Mac, and various ways on the PC I'm sure. If the only thing people lost was protected AAC's and everything else worked the same, that would be pretty much removing the downsides that keep all those sucky players sucky.

They *never* think logically, or put themselves in the shoes of users.

[Pete @ Feb 11th 2007 10:15AM]

Oh yeah right.... and Apple is just sitting in their labs doing nothing.

[metal @ Feb 11th 2007 11:12AM]

Aaron.

I once owned an ipod mini. At one point I dropped the thing ( three feet onto a carpeted floor I might add ). After the currently playing song finished, I got that wonderful ipod frowny face. After dismantling the thing and shaking the microdrive a little bit, I knew the head shattered the platter.

Thats why for some people spending 200 dollars on something with only 4-8 gigs makes sense. I mean you may not drop your electronics a whole lot, but one time is all it takes for you to waste 250 dollars.

Needless to say the odds of me owning any sort of hard drive based player ever again are slim to none.

[dave @ Feb 11th 2007 12:03PM]

Hey, guess what- Apple already has a much better flash-based, widescreen video iPod- it's called the iPhone.

Unless you're an idiot, you realize that Apple has already engineered a nano-sized version without the phone capabilities- and it's just around the corner. - If they want to do one, and think there's a market for it, they will.

Although frankly, it astounds me how many people bitch that the screen on the video iPod is "too small". But somehow Sony is going to "kill the iPod" with a screen half as big??!

You guys are hilarious.

Finally- anything Sony comes up with will look NOTHING LIKE the OLED-based DAPs pictured above-obviously.

[strider_mt2k @ Feb 11th 2007 12:10PM]

I'll stick with my Sansa too.

My e280 does everything this claims to, and it's in my sweaty meat hooks RIGHT NOW.

[GameboyRMH @ Feb 11th 2007 12:22PM]

Taking flat and rectangular cues from Apple? Oh that's right I forgot, Apple invented flat and rectangular-shaped devices with the iPod's stunning new shape, and everything flat and rectangular made afterwards was just trying to ride on their success.

[Ted Nugent @ Feb 11th 2007 1:14PM]

A RECTANGLE?!

The gall of these companies blatantly infringing upon Apple's previous use of the shape! Unbelievable!

If it's a rectangular, thin MP3 player, it must be a Nano ripoff. No questions asked, in Engadget's eyes.

[Aaron @ Feb 12th 2007 10:04AM]

I don't have an 80 GB iPod. I will never buy an iPod, for that matter. And I did not say all flash players were bad. I was saying I didn't like the iPod Nano and nobody should be trying to imitate it. If you have a good flash player that you got for a decent price, then congratulations, you're smarter than the iPod whores. I wish everyone could be.

In the future, try to read what someone is saying before making a reply. I entirely understand wanting a flash player for physical activities.

[mike @ Feb 11th 2007 5:19PM]

"FLAC and Ogg Vorbis is more than a fad. "


LMFAO... what year is this...?

[lrd @ Feb 13th 2007 2:02PM]

Just give it up Sony!

[DrunkenCP @ Feb 18th 2007 5:32AM]

I doubt that Stevie and the rest of Apple is quaking in their boots. Remember the Bean? Well, if you do, that will be for the massive failure. SonicStage is horrid compared to iTunes (which I do not like but give credit to.) The only player that can be said to be "butting heads" with the Nano is the Sansa E200 series. [sarcasm]Plus Apple's lawyers will be all over Sony for their blatant ripoff of the Nano's shape![/sarcasm]
PS: That player looks really neat, but Sony has probably already chambered their foot-shootin' gun.

[SornyPanafonic @ Feb 11th 2007 10:12PM]

i have owned several sony flash mp3 players, the latest being the nw-s706f, great looking player with 50 hours of battery life and 40 hours with the noise suppersion on. great sound quality, my brother has had 2 ipods and the sound from them is crap next to this one. i also had a sony 507 with 50 hour battery and i found that it usually lasted about 40-45 hours. only need to recharge it like once every 3 weeks. great for people who are always on the go and dont need to carry 5 million hours of music in their ipod that will only work for 10.

[Aaron @ Feb 12th 2007 10:08AM]

Well, I can only assume you didn't actually read anything I said.

If you want a flash player, that's all well and good. If you want to blow $250 on something that costs less than half that to make, then that's your decision. I've thought about buying an iPod Shuffle, myself, because that's a little more reasonable. In fact, you would know that if you had read the later comments.

My original point still holds: people are buying Nanos simply because they're iPods. NOT because they actually have a use for a good flash player. If that were actually the case, why would you elect to spend much more than you need to? Because iPods are "cool", right.

I'm not condemning flash players. I never was. I've made plenty of positive comments about interesting flash players that have friendly pricetags.

What I don't like is other companies copying Apple and their stupid products. And worse, their prices. I see that a recent comment says this Sony player is a lot cheaper. Good for them.

[Jimmy B @ Feb 12th 2007 7:25AM]

back when I worked for sony I used to sell these (NW-A1000/NW-A3000) and i'm glad that a new one is coming out, not because I want to see a new device as much i want to see the current one's die in a pool of lava. they're awful and so was the software... i have an older NW-HD3 and i wouldn't change it for anything, its just a plain and simple mp3 player, no colour screen no video or photo viewer (plus i was able to remove the european sound limiter)

[nosrednAneB @ Feb 12th 2007 8:30AM]

This thing has been out in Japan for almost a year now. Hardly new and exciting. It's main advantage is it's price over the iPod. But other than that, nothing special at all.

[Ian @ Feb 13th 2007 4:33AM]

Apparently, Aaron has never exercised with his HDD based iPod. It's not nearly as good as a Nano in that respect. In fact, my HDD-based iPod occasionally skips when I run. I don't mind CDs skipping, but having an HDD "skip" and freeze up isn't good news.

Also look at the size of the HDD based iPod when compared to the Nano.

Aaron, I, like many other people, would never buy an HDD based iPod because it would be useless for me. Even if you gave me a video iPod for free, I'd still need to buy at least an iPod Shuffle, so to say that Nanos are a ripoff is wrong. The video iPod is a ripoff to me and anyone who doesn't sit in front of their computer all day, and then go home and watch TV before and after dinner.

[indeego @ Feb 13th 2007 9:40AM]

btw, here is the countdown for the new Walkman: http://www.sony.de/PageView.do?site=odw_de_DE ( 15 days, 8 hours, 20 minutes -> march, 1st )

[�COM-4 @ Feb 17th 2007 10:52AM]

So this is what an "ipod killer" looks like? Ok....