The New iPods are Confusing
Ahh remember the good old days when there was one iPod? That amazing beautiful little 5 gigger that changed the music industry forever. And then there was the second generation, then the third, then the shuffle, the nano, the video and now the iPod touch.
How far we’ve come. Or have we?
The latest iPod line represents a point of confusion for Apple. Is the best iPod the one that has the most storage, the iPod Classic (I always shiver when companies adopt the classic moniker, kind of reminds me of the whole new Coke debacle). Or is the best iPod the one with the best user interface, the iPod Touch? Or is the best iPod the one with a phone built in?
Choice is a great thing except when every choice is filled with a compromise. Beeblebrox, our most frequent commenter, observed that his ideal iPod would:
- Have the storage of the Classic
- With the user interface of the Touch
- With the price point of the Nano
Instead what we get is choice based not on what is ideal for our scenario, but what we are willing to compromise on. Despite the hype and hyperbole we have ended up with an iPod line that is a series of compromises. What Apple should have done is what they did with the original iPod: focus on creating the one great thing. If the iPod Touch isn’t ready for a hard drive, don’t release it until Apple designers and engineers figure it out. Yes, one could argue, 16 gigs is a lot more than the original 5 GB capacity, but with video content 16 gigs gets chewed up awfully quickly.
Apple appears to have rushed this iPod release, and given users nothing really new. We have the iPod Classic, aka an old iPod bumped up a little in storage and with a refined interface, and we have the iPod Touch which is a spayed and neutered iPhone (why remove Mail?!). And then there is the Nano, nice package, not enough storage.
It is time for Apple to truly reinvigorate and reinvent the iPod line. This line will no doubt do well as Apple has the advantage of market-share and mind-share, but Apple cannot sit on its success for too long without risking the overall dominance of the iPod.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Apple knows real well the direction of portable storage and thanks, Ben, for highlighting the current technological realities we have today.
If you look at the big picture (á la Steve) of the entire portable product line, you begin to notice the deliberate movement towards ALL-flash devices. Gone will be the slow mobile HDD when the opportunity comes - perhaps in 18-36 months. Current price declines of flash capacities have been rapid in the last 2 years but has leveled-off this year.
Even then the 128GB SSD drives would still be too thick to add to an 11mm and 8mm-thick enclosures. That means waiting for the next generation, or two, Gbit densities.
So, I for one, wants more storage than what I currently have (same as Chris H.‘s 30GB Photo) so I would be fine with the next gen Touch or iPhone w/ 32GB audio-only or 64GB with videos mixed in for those long flights.
I think my request is very realistic and doable for Apple engineers and their marketing folks to agree on.
Let’s be clear, we’re talking about “the storage of the iPod classic at the form factor and price of the iPod nano”.
No actually, I’m talking about the storage of the Classic in the form factor of the Touch. It would probably be a little thicker than it is now, probably about as thick as the 5G iPod. Which is perfectly acceptable to me, and I would imagine, to most people.
Do you remember that I for one argued the exact opposite of all those things?
You actually accused me of giving short shrift to the “engineering nightmare” of selling both DRM and non-DRM music. Maybe they had a point, you said. It turns out, they didn’t.
If at any stage you would care to undertake a reasoned critique of that argument, I’d be honestly and genuinely delighted.
They only reasoned critique you’re ever interested in is finding imaginative excuses to justify everything Apple does. I don’t do that, so you’ll just have to think of my arguments what you will.
The truly extraordinary thing would be to think that Apple’s incredibly proficient teams & engineers wouldn’t have had sound reasons for not using hard drives in both the iPhone and iPod touch
You forgot “handsome” too. *groan*
They have reasons, sure. But I’m willing to bet that almost none of them are technical.
They are holding back some features for future rollouts, as almost all technology companies do, and compromising others in the name of form. The result is a video player with a ludicrously small capacity for video. So what if it’s 8mm thick if it won’t hold even a fourth of my music collection and almost none of my videos?
Again, I’m sure you’re perfectly happy with whatever chum Jobs tosses down at you, but some of us want more and don’t see any good reason why we’re not getting it.
The real problem is usually you compromise features versus price.
With iPods, price isn’t the factor. In fact, as price goes up, in some regards “feature value” goes down.
As I said over in the comments for my article, the iPod touch’s feature restrictions is like a partner who won’t have sex.
Sure there’s ways around it:
-solo/third party apps;
- get them drunk/hack the system;
- a bit on the side/a second device that has the other features.
I, too, wish Aston Martin would come out with a coupe with a removable top, hybrid fuel technology and 4-litre V12 engine, and then sell it at the price of a Toyota. The fact that they don’t makes me want to curse Aston Martin engineers for 7 generations.
Jeez.
“What Apple should have done is what they did with the original iPod: focus on creating the one great thing. “
You have to realise the iPod is now a product that’s almost towards the end of the mature trajectory. At this point it makes economic sense to splinter the product line to offer as many choices as possible to retain customers and attract new ones.
The single iPod line made sense when Apple was just exploring a new market. Now that it has more or less owned that market, it needs to now make sure that it can wrest the most out of it. So people like the poster above who needed different iPods for different situations would have to buy 3 different iPods instead of just the one.
Evil? Or plain good business sense? You decide.
The iPod touch is going to make people look stupid.
Scenario:
You meet someone, jot their personal details into your iPod touch. Ooooeee! Impressive!
“Now let’s make a time to meet again”, says they.
“How’s Monday the tenth at 11pm for you?” says they.
You check you iPod touch.
“Yep, I’m free. let’s do it,” says you.
You fumble around for a pen
“You got a pen?” asks you.
“Why don’t you just use that thing?” says they.
“It doesn’t have calendar entry. Altho… I could type it into your address book record and then copy it over to the calendar when I get back to my computer. Or if there’s WiFi around here, I could log onto my email online using the browser and email myself the details,” trying to sound somewhat intelligent and in control.
“It’s ok, here’s a pen,” says they.
You grab a piece of paper from your wallet, probably the back of a shopping receipt, and scribble down the date and time for your next meeting.
Hardly impressive.
iPod touch = iLook stupid.
My gooodness people. So the iPod touch doesn’t have a freakin calendar. Its not the end of the world. I mean it would be nice, but really its digital music/video player first.
An none of this, not a damn thing anyone here has said has changed my mind.
I want an iPod touch real bad.
This lineup is not that confusing. I contend that this lineup basically has at least one product that _every_ consumer could be happy with.
Heck I’m even tempted to buy a touch _and_ a nano. You could use each of them in different circumstances.
Choice is a good thing. I’m sorry Apple has made people think about which iPod they want….
Why do you want an iPod touch, BigW?
They only reasoned critique you’re ever interested in is finding imaginative excuses to justify everything Apple does.
Since you constantly shy away from discussing any of the details of arguments like these, preferring to throw your toys out of the pram and bandy around stereotypes, you’ve never had occasion to find out whether that assertion is true.
I don’t do that, so you’ll just have to think of my arguments what you will.
When I think your arguments are poor I will continue to say so. No doubt you will continue to retort by asserting that I always take that side, for instance:
You actually accused me of giving short shrift to the “engineering nightmare” of selling both DRM and non-DRM music. Maybe they had a point, you said.
I did no such thing.
Lies, Beeb, lies will get you noplace.