Why do smartphones always get better features than MP3 players?

Edited by Joan6275, 02 January 2016 - 12:15 PM.

I'm afraid I don't own any Apple products so I can only take your word for it, but I do agree with your point.  About a month ago I purchased an mp3 player from one of the lesser known manufacturers and in my opinion it wasn't a lower end product either, in price tag or features, but in some respects it was still like an item I would have purchased 10 years ago. I would like to see more mp3 players with wifi and a cloud drive facility, so you could play your entire collection through your player.  It does seem daft that these are additional features which we take for granted on our phones, yet we see them on very few devices designed for the purpose of viewing and listening to our media.

To be honest, MP3 players don't need the features that smartphones do. They're just meant for playing music if you think about it, while smartphones are basically handheld computers.

To be honest, MP3 players don't need the features that smartphones do. They're just meant for playing music if you think about it, while smartphones are basically handheld computers.

^This

Music players play music, so their features revolve around music content. A Nintendo 3DS can play games, music, video, and render web pages, so it's features and development all revolve around that. Smartphones are computers so they can virtually anything. Their development reflects that.

iphone is one example, the iPod touch doesn't get updated frequently, the iPhone always gets updates with new and latest features such as iPhone 5s got Touch ID and iPhone 6s got 3D Touch which 3D Touch is a feature not even iPads get. It's just not fair how Tim Cook seems to focuse more on the Apple Watch and the iPhone more than any other of their devices including Mac, iPad, and iPod. What do you guys think? Is it fair? Why or why not?

In the case of Apple products, it is because iPhone sales dwarf by HUGE margins the sales of iPod Touches and iPads, so they will get the most attention from Apple. The plain simple fact is that iPhones make Apple the bulk of its profits, while the iPod Touch profits are likely equivalent to a rounding error in Apple's financial books.

This is also seen in general terms. The reality is the most people these days will have a smartphone that can play music, so they don't need a MP3 player. This even includes relatively young people (i.e. teenagers). This means that the market for MP3 players are greatly diminished, which means that companies will treat MP3 players as second class citizens compared to smartphones. Yes, there are still people who want them such as people who use them for exercise (and don't want to carry a bigger bulkier smartphone...but that then precludes them from also wanting iPod Touches as well) and kids who are not ready for a cell phone. But, it is a very minority market.

And, of course, there is the issue that others pointed out.  If you ignore the iPod Touch and only focus on "pure" MP3/music players (i.e. only play music), then MP3 players generally don't need fancy features.  After all, they only need to play music.  Of course, the one variable these days are streaming music services.  The traditional MP3 player is still of the "old days" where you bought your music (or in my case, still the case).  So, an iPod Touch type of device does start to make more sense in today's world where streaming music services have become way more popular (I personally still hate the idea of paying for a subscription that would essentially mean all my music goes away if I stop paying or can no longer afford to pay).  And I suppose some more fancy features could be useful for a device that can stream music.

So, is it unfair? Definitely for those who do want something like an iPod Touch that would have the same features as an iPhone...but then I hate to tell you this...but life is unfair.

Edited by smax013, 20 January 2017 - 10:37 PM.