Advisor-bar

Say good-bye to what made the iPod great

Posted September 1, 2010 4:05pm by Eric Benderoff Tags: iPod, Apple, Music

Apps mentioned:

Apple (AAPL) killed what made the iPod great on Wednesday.

For years, Apple flourished by making its market-dominating music player smaller in size but bigger in storage. The pricing generally stayed flat for new models, but the feature set and storage capacity always offered more. It was a good deal for consumers who were ready to upgrade, particularly on storage.

That option appears to be over, as Steve Jobs made no mention of what was to become of the iPod classic. For true music lovers, the classic was the must-have iPod, as it offered 160GB of storage -- or 40,000 songs in Apple-speak -- and sold for a reasonable $249, just over $1.50 per gigabyte. The iPod classic did not get a makeover like Apple's other three iPod lines: the touch, nano and shuffle.

For music lovers, the iPod started everything

If you love music, you loved the original intent behind the iPod. Sure, one could argue that there was a loss of fidelity with digital music and their compressed files, but products including high-end earphones could compensate for that loss. Apple allowed music lovers to upgrade to bigger-capacity iPods over the years, so if you started building a digital music library as I did back in 2001, when the first 5GB iPod was introduced, you could upgrade as you imported more music. Also, as uncompressed music files started to gain traction among audiophiles to lessen the impact of digital music loss, the need for additional storage became more important.

For many music fans, music capacity trumped everything else, including touch controls, apps and even cute colors.

Yet that era of the bigger-is-better iPod is closing. Jobs showcased a brand-spanking new iPod line-up on Wednesday, and the biggest model offered only 64GB of storage. That is the top-end iPod touch, certainly a beauty of a machine, but one that provides a gigabyte of storage for a whopping $6.20. As a music fan who continues to build a lifelong music library, that's depressing.

The new iPods do offer a little bit more (except for storage) for the same price. The new touch has a front-facing camera for video chats. The new nano is touch-screen only, while the shuffle re-introduced the scroll wheel to fix a flaw in the previous model. Only the shuffle actually costs less than its predecessor, dropping to $49 from $59. The touch starts at $229, a higher price for 8GB, while it still tops out at $399 for 64GB. The nano, meanwhile, has been completely redesigned, but the pricing is exactly the same, $149 for 8GB and $179 for 16GB.

Jobs didn't say anything about the lifespan of the iPod classic, and it is still available if you go to Apple.com to buy one. But for how much longer? The design for the iPod classic page at Apple.com is the exact same as it was this morning, while the three other iPod products have upgraded pages to highlight the new features.

New era started with the iPod touch

The iPod, of course, started morphing into much more than a music player in 2007, when the iPod touch came out. The iPod touch is practically an iPhone without the phone (or as Jobs likes to say, "an iPhone without the contract"). The other iPods have become specialty items: the shuffle is designed for workouts, while the nano, thanks to its broad array of colors (the new model offers seven) has been the darling of teenage girls.

In my view, besides a lack of storage, the iPod touch is the way to go if you want to buy an iPod. Thanks to a Wi-Fi connection, it does compensate for a lack of storage, allowing users to stream music from services like Last.fm, Slacker or Pandora, among countless other audio services.

But as Apple continues to evolve its iPod line-up, it has strayed from what made its annual upgrades great in the first place: more storage. Perhaps Steve Jobs will surprise with another announcement soon, but don't bet on it.

If you want an iPod to do what an iPod was intended to do, hurry up and buy a classic. On Wednesday, Apple stuck a fork in it.

ReelScience

Missing

Eric,
The good news is at least 3 people read this blog; probably due to the sensationalistic headline. The bad news is you're wrong (of course). Having a tech blog has gone to your head and caused you to make the same mistake many of your peers do, over and over again. That mistake is characterizing your opinions as the definitive truth about whatever it is you're writing about at the moment. I won't dispute that you may believe what you're writing, because, well, if it were otherwise it would be dishonest, but to assume that you know Apple's iPod market better than they do takes some ego.

The iPod Classic does have a following, but I'm willing to bet it's a pretty small one. Who really wants 40,000 songs at their fingertips? Thats 113 days of 24 hour music with repeating a single song! I have a friend who says that's not the point. He likes knowing that he could listen to any of his songs on a moment's notice. I asked him how many GBs he had filled on his Classic and he said "around 80". Show me a person that has a full 160 GB of music on his Classic and will swear on everything that is holy, that he cannot possibly leave the house without having every single one of those songs in his pocket. Please! I don't think these people exist, not if they are being honest.

I think (just my opinion, mind you) that Apple has figured out that storage on iPods has reached the limit of its usefulness and that there is no reason to expand it further (especially with the use of hard drives).

I'm sure there are other opinions out there that are different from yours and mine and they'd be just as valid. Which is to say, maybe not valid at all.

You'll be a much more interesting read (at least to me) if you identify when you write about stuff that is just your opinion as an opinion, than trying to sound as if this is the last word; end of discussion.

Reply to comment Posted September 01, 2010

Jdawgnoonan

Missing

I have a 109 GB iTunes library and an aging 160GB iPod classic. I am disappointed that they seemed to have hit a ceiling on the storage size on the nano and on the touch. A touch is pointless to me until it stores at least 120 GB. I like having all of my music, I like to rip music at 320, and I like to be able to auto sync (I hate making playlists).

I am disappointed. But I am happy about the shuffle, because the gen 3 shuffle was my least favorite mp3 player ever.

Reply to comment Posted September 01, 2010

ggear0323

Missing

nicely written response, even if you dont have any idea what you are talking about. even that friend you were talking about had more than 64GB of music and i assure you, there are many many people out there with more than 100GBs of music in their library. i am not even into music like that and i have a library of about 40 gigs. you are making up excuses for a problem you say doesnt exist. "reached the limit of its usefulness?" How? by reducing it to less than half of what it used to be?

Reply to comment Posted September 02, 2010

Anonymous

Missing

I actually have two 160 gb ipods since I outgrew the one. Granted, I only have about 180 GB between the two at the moment but suffice it to say that there are people like me out there.

Posted September 02, 2010

axstar

Missing

If you look on the Apple website, it still shows the iPod Classic 160GB. I'm glad, because I have one and I plan on filling it up eventually. Right now, I have it half full, but plan on adding plenty of music while the device is still alive :-)

Reply to comment Posted September 01, 2010

durgadas

Regis-headshot

Yes, I agree to some extent, however, by the time I can upgrade my 3Gs, the hard drive sizes will be big enough for me again.... now, I've outgrown my 32GB version by a fair bit.

Reply to comment Posted September 02, 2010

mrkrimpet

Missing

What I fail to understand is how no news of the iPod classic means the death of it. Until flash memory gets large and cheap enough for a high-capacity Nano or Touch, the classic will be here. It's not going anywhere and probably won't change much. It doesn't need to change since it works as good as it can for what very enthusiastic music enthusiasts want from it.

The move to a purely touch-screen equipped Nano makes perfect sense. So, imagine what a 100+ GB Nano or Touch could be.

High-end headphones only bring out more of the imperfections in mp3/aac that frustrate audiophiles and iPod batteries have never been able to support prolonged playing of lossless files.

Most people don't have extensive music collections, smaller iPods work for most people. The only thing Apple killed today was your notion that more storage makes for a superior iPod.

Reply to comment Posted September 02, 2010

fphjansen

Missing

Eric,

a well-written and thoughtful blog entry! I agree with your assessment that Apple has moved away from the core of what got most of us interested in the iPod: music. I have an aging and sometimes temperamental 80GB Classic and was looking forward to this announcement to possibly move away from HDD storage to one of the the Touch models.

After this announcement, I am looking at alternatives, such as using my newly acquired Droid X as my music platform of choice. As I am sure that I am not alone in this kind of thinking, it would appear that Apple has lost its focus on this part of its market... Yes, the new iMacs are incredible, but I was expecting similar wow for the iPods...

Time to watch the tide shift.

Reply to comment Posted September 02, 2010

seanmchughinfo

Missing

People are crazy. 40,000 songs is enough okay. My god, I love music and I only listen to a set of about 20 maybe 30 songs at any given point in my life. Oh more storage for movies you say? Then we are no longer talking about "music lovers".

Second there has never been anything special about the ipod. It's an mp3 player. yay.

iTunes had a good idea with micro-charges but the ipod itself is just the modern versin of a walkman.

Finally I hope you ar not suggesting that the headphones that come with the ipod are high end. Any headphone less than $150 is low end. I say this with absolute confidence because I have bought many, many headphones and they pretty much all sound the same until you get the entry level bose headphones at $150.

You guys know the entire Apple company just markets gimmicks right? Stop acting like things are awesome when they the are just the same old story.

Reply to comment Posted September 04, 2010

JenniferE

Missing

Personally, I've been bummed since they changed the nano from the squat square design to the slimmer rectangular one...i bought a 3gig nano back in 2007 but it's starting to show its age (rebooting w/o warning, believing it lives in hawaii when it lives in ca, the "skip to next track" button hasn't worked for month, etc). i've grown very attached to what i have but i don't think getting another is in the cards...bummer tho i would have paid more for more storage in the same design.

Reply to comment Posted September 04, 2010
View All Comments »
Facebook Activity