I’m far from an open source fanatic, in fact I view open source as having many problems related to innovation and usability - especially in the desktop space, where Linux is currently poised to do nothing more than confuse and disappoint casual users.

Open source development seems to work best when a small group of developers (or a corporate entity) lead or champion development around a goal focused target - Apache, Firefox, Linux kernal, XLG; and is worst at many of the things I’ve suggested are important - user interface design, feature innovation etc. This is why I’m recommending a corporation create the device suggested above, rather than a cooperative.

If you’d like to point out the flaws you’re finding in my ideas, please go ahead, debate is an excellent way of improving them.

- I don’t work for a multinational corp, but I can venture a couple of guesses about why they don’t or can’t come up with a product like this.

1) Underestimation of the impact of community support - although I hope Firefox is changing this.

2) Fear of the recording industry. Without being a lawyer I can’t estimate how warranted this is.

3) Desire for a piece of the (rapidly disappearing) music sales pie.

4) Lack of user interface design skill. The companies that offer the most feature rich designs (traditionally Archos), seem to offer the worst user interface and out of box experience. This is where Apple have traditionally excelled, and I would attribute much of the success of the iPod (despite its obvious failings) to the simplicity and ’slickness’ of thee device, and its peerless software integration.

5) It’s obvious to you or I, but perhaps the companies producing these devices have different strategies - take over the living room, rip off the iPod in a cheaper device, make an integrated do everything device.

In terms of getting into a position to influence such decisions - getting away from myself (I’ve no desire to work in the creativity crushing confines of a mega corp, and no management ability to speak of) - I don’t think it’s impossible to retain a user focused sensibility. Looking at the development of the Xbox over at Microsoft, they seem to have produced a product which leveraged what developers were screaming for (XNA - speed and ease of development for mammoth next gen products), and provided users with a useful service they didn’t necessarily realise they wanted (X-Box Live, gamer tag rankings etc).

The difficulty would be convincing senior management to take such risks, and ignoring the focus group mentality in favor of intense Jakob Neilsen like usability testing, and an understanding that edge features which open the device to new uses will drive adoption.

This all seems pretty obvious. So why don’t they do it? Why can’t they do it?

Do you think that by the time you got to be in a position to make decisions like this you would still be as in touch with what the market needed?

Take a deep breath Toshiba, Creative, Archos, I’m about to describe how to become a real player in the portable media arena.

Yeah, sure! Should they now pay you royalties for coming up with such brilliant ideas! LOL!
Would you mind not posting such crap in future, please!