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
IMHO, you couldn’t be further from the truth. Apple has given us a considerable amount of choice.
Trying to offer a device that will:
- have the storage of the Classic
- with the user interface of the Touch
- with the price point of the Nano
is simply ridiculous. What about joggers? They want a HDD? (no) The size of the iTouch/iPhone is a bit big when you are looking for ultra portable. If you want a larger screen, you could go with a iPod touch or etc. etc.
There will always be compromises when dealing with a product line. If there weren’t, you wouldn’t need a product line. It’s all about the return on investment.
Also, there is some speculation regarding weather or not OS X (the base of the iPhone/iPod touch) could run satisfactorily on such a HDD.
Also, adding that HDD would increase the thickness both with the drive and with the battery needed to power the larger screen and HD. Also, potential heat issues… bla bla bla.
I’ll admit, I’m not a fan of the iPod touch not having email or a proper calendar, but don’t make it worse than it is.
Confusing? Not really. Every single purchase decision is based on weighing pros and cons and, in most cases, making compromises. It’s funny, when companies like Apple (and even Microsoft) don’t offer choices, they’re being dictatorial and monopolistic. When they do offer a range, they’re confusing and convoluted. What’s the real answer?
Of course you want an ipod Touch that stores 160GB, is still 8mm thin and has a 100-hour battery life for $150. If it were technically possible and financially feasible, Apple would love to sell it to you. But it’s not, at least not yet, so Apple made some compromises in revamping their iPod line to offer something for everyone. That’s how smart companies work.
what we get is choice based not on what is ideal for our scenario
This is because what is ideal is not yet technologically possible. Adding a hard drive to the iPod touch would make it ungainly and large. And flash is expensive.
Flash offers very substantial advantages over hard drives:
- solid state for durability & jogging
- sublime random seek times which will be very important for a seamless Core Animation experience including coverflow at considerably higher resolution than on the ipods (ever notice how much more responsive the ipods’ photo viewing is on flash-based iPod nanos compared to HD-based iPods?)
- much lower power with no costly power peaks for spinning up—a very important consideration for the iPhony hardware platform (which included iPod touch)
- much smaller physically for sleek design
An iPhone/iPod touch with a hard drive would be slow and look ungainly next to the current iPhone.
So we waits for the flash to arrive in higher densities.
IOW, the iPods are not really confusing from a “why are they like this” standpoint. It comes down to necessary compromise.
First, you ignore that every product is a compromise. Every car, every pair of jeans, every engagement ring, every item you buy. The iPod is no different. And the consumer is also always forced to compromise - sometimes on price, sometimes on features, sometimes on need. Heck, the best selling automobile in the US in one no one really wants to buy - the minivan. Its features best meet the needs of the modern family.
Apple is offering four distinct products because the market wants them - because we each have our list of needs, wants, and constraints.
* some want an iPod but have very little to spend. Apple covers them with the shuffle.
* some want to carry their large catalog of music and videos. Apple give them the classic
* some want a sturdier device than the classic, light like the shuffle, but with more features. Apples give them the nano
* some are awed by the iPhone but for one reason or another aren’t going to buy an iPhone. Apple gives the the touch
Does the product line make it hard for some of us to choose? Sure…just like I found it hard to choose when I bought a new TV this summer. But I’m better off than if Sony offered only one HD TV.
I agree fully, Apple’s product line is ridiculously confused.
They iPod touch and new nano are ridiculous as two products. They should have just made a smaller touch with a 2.5” screen and discontinued the other body style- voila! the new iPod nano. Oh and nike+ compatibility built-in, without the stupid dongle.
The iPod touch should have a hard drive and 160gb. Instead you have to choose either screen size or storage space, and whichever you choose you are compromising on something. Every single person who buys a “classic” will be wishing for the larger screen, and would be willing to pay for it with the thickness of the hard drive.
The shuffle needs nike+ compatibility as well, add a HRM, and Apple will own the running market.
akatsuki,
Apple IS running the market. If the iPod touch had a 160GB drive, many people would get it over the iPhone. Apple needs to maintain the allure of upgrading to an iPhone. The iPhone IS the future of the iPod… I know this… Apple knows this.
I think the iPod touch is a fantastic product. 8 or 16GB is fine for most people. I was using a 6GB iPod mini for the longest time. My collection is over 50+GB… I really don’t need all of it. Do I really need that christmas music? Old CDs I haven’t listened to in years, etc. etc. Creating smart playlists automated everything for this power user.
Well let’s be fair. The new nano is a marvellous upgrade. Double the storage at the same price point - and with a gorgeous, incredibly high-DPI display, video capabilities and coverflow.
That’s pretty ace.
They should have just made a smaller touch with a 2.5” screen and discontinued the other body style- voila! the new iPod nano
...
The iPod touch should have a hard drive and 160gb. Instead you have to choose either screen size or storage space, and whichever you choose you are compromising on something
You have some thinking to do, akatsuki.
Engineering products are compromises of know-how + raw materials + available technology + (this is the big one) COST.
Even if all of the first three compromises are there it is still not entirely feasible to price it at the nano level.
Eventually, we will get what we want as technological capability becomes a commodity - priced for mass consumption - and not just for the well-funded, whiny first adopters.
There is a Biz 101 wisdom that goes: “You give end customers what they want. They’ll come back asking for more, more, more.” Sounds like we have just proven this with our little gripes over the iTouch and the new iPod line.
Now, if only the iPhone/Touch have 1TB of HDD capacity while keeping the 8/16GB flash for L3 caching…
Amazing statistic from <a hreh=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/technology/circuits/13pogue.html?_r=1&oref=slogin”>Pogue</a>:
At this rate of expansion, the iPod of 2010 will hold all six million songs on the iTunes store.
Drat.
God forbid anyone ever want more from an Apple product than what Steve Jobs deigns to sprinkle down upon us from his silver Tower of Generosity.
To sum up every commenter except akatsuki, “You should just be happy you even live in the same universe as the iPod. So shut up and be happy!”
And if Apple didn’t offer it to you, then it’s TECHNOLOGICALLY UNFEASIBLE! Or it would COST TOO MUCH! Remember when video on the iPod was the WRONG THING TO DO? Remember when Apple couldn’t have both DRM and un-DRM songs in the iTunes store because it was an ENGINEERING NIGHTMARE? Or when they would never put wifi in an iPod because it would RUIN THE BATTERY?
Well we got all those things anyway DESPITE the fanboys’ insistence that we didn’t really want them and had no right to ask.
I think the issue here is that all of the compromises seem unnecessary. It’s like offering a car with a steering wheel and four tires that only holds a gallon of gas, or a car with no steering wheel or tires but it holds 15 gallons of gas. It’s would not only make consumers happy to have the best of both worlds, there’s no real reason not to do it.
The iPod Touch should replace the iPod Classic as the top of the line product. It does everything the Classic does while adding touch screen and wifi. But it has ONE FIFTH the storage. That’s a step backwards, particularly for a device designed around VIDEO.
And for the joggers, that’s what the Nano and the Shuffle are for.
The iPod Touch should replace the iPod Classic as the top of the line product. It does everything the Classic does while adding touch screen and wifi. But it has ONE FIFTH the storage. That’s a step backwards, particularly for a device designed around VIDEO.
To clarify this, I mean to say that the iPod Touch should add the Classic’s storage and THEN replace it completely in the line up.
I think the new iPods are great. The problem is that each serves distinctly different needs… and many people have multiple needs.
I wanted the Nano for something tiny that I can adjust tracks on while driving (ie: by feeling the click wheel), the Classic for the hard disk space, and the Touch for the revolutionary interface & full screen video. Damn.
However, putting a hard disk in the Touch would make it bigger, heavier, and give less battery life. Bad idea. I suspect Apple protyped a Touch with Hard disk (plus local caching and bigger battery to compensate) and found with the extra thickness it lost it’s “cool factor”.
I read somewhere an interesting opinion that Apple’s new iPod line was really
... 1GB Shuffle -> 4-8 GB Nano -> 8-16GB Touch.
The “Classic” was just an afterthought to satisfy people who wanted lots of space - sounds feasible.
God forbid anyone ever want more from an Apple product than what Steve Jobs deigns to sprinkle down upon us from his silver Tower of Generosity…
And if Apple didn’t offer it to you, then it’s TECHNOLOGICALLY UNFEASIBLE! Or it would COST TOO MUCH!
Let’s be clear, we’re talking about “the storage of the iPod classic at the form factor and price of the iPod nano”.
ie 80 and 160 GB of flash memory in a device that size.
That is technologically unfeasible at present and likely to remain so through 2010. Even pretending the price wouldn’t be increased by hundreds of dollars, it would have to be very considerably larger than the size of an iPod classic, much like the 128GB SSDs we’re now seeing as very expensive (>$4,000) options in high end Alienware notebooks.
Remember when video on the iPod was the WRONG THING TO DO? Remember when Apple couldn’t have both DRM and un-DRM songs in the iTunes store because it was an ENGINEERING NIGHTMARE? Or when they would never put wifi in an iPod because it would RUIN THE BATTERY?
Do you remember that I for one argued the exact opposite of all those things?
The iPod Touch should replace the iPod Classic as the top of the line product. It does everything the Classic does while adding touch screen and wifi. But it has ONE FIFTH the storage. That’s a step backwards, particularly for a device designed around VIDEO.
Above I’ve presented reasons why solid state drives are appropriate (or more importantly, why the slow 1.8” drives for iPods are inappropriate) for the iPhone/touch.
If at any stage you would care to undertake a reasoned critique of that argument, I’d be honestly and genuinely delighted.
If you’d like to read something about solid state storage vs , this is interesting and read the link benchmarking review. The real advantage is in power consumption and random access, which really sucks on traditional HDs, and on very slow 1.8” drives really, really sucks.
If you’d like to talk about any of that, notify my PA or something kthxbai
To clarify this, I mean to say that the iPod Touch should add the Classic’s storage and THEN replace it completely in the line up.
I absolutely agree and as I said in the other comment thread, it is a tiresome matter of waiting for flash densities to get where they need to be.
God forbid anyone ever want more from an Apple product than what Steve Jobs deigns to sprinkle down upon us from his silver Tower of Generosity.
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, even though that massive storage a la iPod classic would be an immense selling point.
That is an extraordinary assertion indeed, Beeblebrox.
I read somewhere an interesting opinion that Apple’s new iPod line was really
... 1GB Shuffle -> 4-8 GB Nano -> 8-16GB Touch.
The “Classic” was just an afterthought to satisfy people who wanted lots of space - sounds feasible.
Bollocks and makes no historical sense whatsoever. The iPod line-up considered without iPod touch makes far and away the most sense.