Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, Klatch’s Sumatra Aceh Gold, Joe Torre wearing Yankee pinstripes again, or the surprising success of Cameron Diaz’s Hot Teacher, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
Remember my reviewer friends that were arguing with me about viewing angles on mobile phones? One of them had an interesting theory that extended our brunch meeting for an hour (at least). He’s sure that Apple selling unlocked iPhones in America spells doom for the iPod. His argument is that the iPod is becoming less and less important to Apple as sales of the iPhone and iPad flourish. He’s certain that the iPod Classic and Touch will be discontinued this year and Apple will instead sell the previous year’s iPhone to snag budget sales.
Although his theory is intriguing, the rest of us doubt it will pan out that way…at least in the near future. It’s true that the iPod is no longer as important to Apple as it once was, but the company still sells million of them. Perhaps the iPod Classic will go away, but it seems too soon to kill off the iPod Touch. Furthermore, slashing the price of an unlocked iPhone 4 will surely piss off carriers. Apple has a lot of stroke, but it’s probably not a good idea for the company to alienate its carrier partners.
Still, I can see it happening eventually. Just not this year or next. What do you think? Will Apple kill off the iPod and just sell old iPhones for cheap? How do you think carriers would react to such a play? Do people still buy iPod Classics?
I actually dusted off my 80gb iPod Classic this morning just for the hell off it and forgot how much awesome music I have on it.
I have only had this thing for three years and haven't used it for the last year and a half. After going through a couple of smart phones (HTC MyTouch & LG G2x) this iPod looks and feels dated. To put one song on repeat I had to press more buttons than I am accustomed to (long press ftw!) and the screen is so damn tiny. It's only a matter of time before they scrap it.
It still works great though!
Only if they have a cheaper iPhone. Selling 8gig iPhones is giving too much to your competition.
That's the idea. He believes that the unlocked iPhone 4 will be slashed by 50% or more when the next model goes on sale.
What exactly were the specs on said iPhone 4? Retina display? more than 8 gigs of memory? I agree with Pachter here….Apple didn't anticipate the gaming scene exploding on the iPod touch and they aren't about to tamper with it.
Same as the current model but also with an 8GB option, similar to how Apple went extra cheap with the marked down 3GS.
I don't see that as a big revelation into how they do things. I don't think they'll get rid of the iPod touch for the unlocked cheap 8 gig iphone 4 though.
lol the surprising thing is that they haven't replaced it sooner. This the company that is known for out-dating its is hardware once or twice a year.
If I had the choice between buying my kids a Touch or an unlocked phone… I'd go with the Touch. I would think alot of parents of children under 14 feel this way.
Then you have the joggers and exercise people in the gym that like the smallness of the Nano and Shuffle.
I don't see Apple alienating this demographics.
If you're friend is an out of shape bachelor, I can see why he didn't think of this. Why do videogame and gadget journalists forget about the largest consumer demographic in America (the kids) is something I'll never know.
but there are a lot of parents out there who buy phones for their 14 year olds. A cheap iPhone would sell to both markets easily.
Kids don't spend money, parents do lol.
He wasn't talking about the Nano and Shuffle. He believes that the Classic and Touch will go away.
@BB & SR
Parents spend more on their kids than they do themselves. This is true.
A 14 year old is one thing, but the device that's really becoming a thing of the past is the portable CD player. My kids are both very interested in music and it seems like a waste of money to me to get either my 8 year old or my 5 year old a phone. They'll probably lose one (like my 8 year old already did in my earlier test) if I bought it.
I like the idea of 2 Touches for the car so they can watch individual things without compromising each other… But that's a rich man's luxury. I like most Americans… am not a rich man.
I'm currently sitting in Medford OR (a small farm city that mimics what alot of America is like) and the most current gen of consoles here is an SNES and my kids are still happy with that (Chrono Trigger is in the house). So gaming is a non-issue.
The truth is… If you don't have kids, you're speculating based on assumptions. When you're standing in the aisle considering the possibilities… It becomes apparent very quickly. Especially when you are not rich.
Your kids just know good video games is all.
So N8R you DON'T want the best for your kids, sound like a bunch of excuses to me!
Total joke man….I would like to hear more about this test thing with your son…sounds like it could be another GR8R N8R story lol.
I base most of my theories on what I observe and not what I have had to choose. Working with the general public and watching parents go around the store shopping while their kid plays a game or watches something on a smartphone is very common. Plus, I consider my mother and step-dad to be a tipi cal family in the US. Not wealthy, but makes enough money to spoil my younger brothers. (My youngest brother is spoiled more than my younger) If there is a electronic devise they want, chances are they can get at least as a Christmas gift. Most people can't do that, but most people aren't Apple's primary source of income.
I mean no disrespect of course, it's in fact the complete opposite. I completely respect your's and everyone's opinions, observations, and speculations, as well as knowledge and intelligence.
I'm just really thinking about my kids. 14 is a totally different demographic (I just woke up when I wrote that). I can't see a reason why my kids would need a phone, but many reasons why they could use an mp3 player.
Especially since my 5 year old daughter consistently sings like 5 parts of 5 different songs that she medleys together all the time. One of them is that Incubus song Nice To Know You combined with that "Whip My Hair Back and Forth" song and some Selena Gomez song. It's rather funny.
My son inherited my love for gaming and tech while my daughter inherited my love for music.
I could rant on how much I dislike semi-rich parents. Truly there is nothing worse in my mind than a parent that pacifies their child every instance they can. (And that probably blurs my views on many things honestly.)
@ BB
It's not that great a story, it's rather simple.
I had the iPhone 3G and upgraded to the 4. I still had the unactivated 3G… So I gave ut to my son.
It was lost for good within a week.
Nah man that is funny I need these kind of parenting stories so I can add them to my arsenal of weaponry for the future lil' Big Blaks lol.
Even though I have an iPod touch there are a lot of times I would prefer to have an iPod classic. Not for the aesthetics or anything, but because those are the only ones that can hold all of my media. Even a 64gb iPod touch wouldn't hold everything I have, and that situation assumes I wouldn't be purchasing or downloading any new media (an inaccurate assumption of the scenario). The 32gb iPod touch, with apps, pictures, and some videos, allows me to have about 1/5 of my music. The iPhones would have to get a lot more internal storage space for it to really be able to matter for someone like me, and only if we see an iPhone with a 160gb hdd inside will I really think they can stop making the iPod classic and iPod touch.
However, I don't see that as a likely scenario because Apple is still a company trying to make money—not create a panacea. By combing the best features of all products into one multi-purpose product they would no longer have people buying potentially all three products. Apple can make more money by getting someone to buy an iPhone and an iPod classic rather than an iPhone with the same hdd space as an iPod classic. Where's the incentive? Sure you could raise the price of the new iPhone claiming that it's worth the money because it's multi-purpose and can do so many things, but it still has to be reasonably priced (something the unlocked iPhones already are not right now, in my opinion). You bundle features on a product and keep a reasonable price; you can't charge $1290 (the combined price of an unlocked iPhone 4, 32gb iPod touch, and 160gb iPod classic) for a multi-purpose product simply because it comes with the combined features of the above mentioned products. With this in mind I see no incentive for Apple to remove products from their sales lineup that are still making them tons of money and forcing people to buy multiple items.
There are a few problems with your argument.
1) 32GB is more than enough for most people.
2) Apple is more interested in you using its cloud service than expanding storage.
3) Apple isn't as interested in pushing the Classic, Nano, and Shuffle because they don't run apps. Those products aren't as lucrative post-sale for the company.
I didn't get a chance to reply to this before because of the comments not always being available.
The cloud service would need to be used anywhere, and like Smartguy pointed out, that will be difficult without unlimited data. Then from that point the cloud storage needs to be able to hold enough data per person, at least similar to what an ipod classic has or had in the previous generation.
Just because they don't have apps doesn't mean other ipods don't have applications. Again, Smartguy pointed out the primary reason I see people with multiple ipods—working out. It probably isn't as lucrative as anything that runs apps, you're right, but it still serves a purpose. If Apple doesn't fill that niche then they would just be leaving the market open for everyone else to take advantage of.
32GB could be enough for an average person—that should have no impact on whether that is enough for the product. One of the first principles of good design is that you take care of the extremes, and the middle will take care of itself. If a product can work for the most extreme users in either direction, than anyone in between will be just fine with the product as well. If they only had a 32GB model then that simply wouldn't work for everyone, meaning there would be even more people who would boycott their products. That also doesn't account for changing times. Ex) the 120GB hdd would have been fine for my xbox before, but it wouldn't have been enough. As time goes on we need more hdd space because there are new things that need to be saved. Another example, my first college laptop had an 80GB hdd, the one before that only had 40GB or less (I don't remember). Now I have a 250GB hdd that's about halfway full and an external hdd with almost 400GB used. So why so that an ipod touch or iphone is good enough with 32GB just because currently that's all some mediocre users need? That doesn't make sense to me.
You should change your last sentence to that it doesn't make sense for you. The changing times argument doesn't work in relation to the cloud. Apple wants it's users to lean on iCloud. Apple's carrier partners certainly want that too.
It's also interesting that you used the word niche. It works against your argument. Apple is interested in making mass market products. This is especially true with it's iOS products, but cam even be seem in Final Cut Pro. Apple's profit margins are high and any 256GB flash player would be expensive. You really think Apple cares enough about letting someone else have that market? More importantly, who would take it? What company has software and services that can compete with Apple? I don't think that's a significant portion of the market.
Ultimately, there isn't a compelling reason to keep the Classic around. The Nano and Shuffle are great products for low-end sales. Apple's obvious focus is on app-related products. There's more money there. So while someone like you might want a 256GB iPod, I don't think Apple cares.
I don't think my last sentence needs the specification for me only, refer to the beginning of that last paragraph for why. It's not just about me, it's about all users.
If Apple wants users to depend on iCloud then they had better have spacious storage amounts for each user, like I mentioned above. Over time people will accumulate more and more, creating the need for either larger hdd space on the device, or an ability to access more space on the cloud. The aforementioned restrictions on being able to access the cloud is a concern if they really want that to be used.
When looking at how I used the word niche, it was not to describe the entire line of Apple products, or even all of the iPod products. It was used to describe only those smaller iPods like the nano and shuffle which are used because of how small they are. Small portable mp3 players are more of a niche within all mp3 players, therefore deserving to be separated from the rest as a niche portion of the market.
Also, Apple should care about what parts of the market they let go because that's the exact opportunity any company needs in order to get a start. You are looking too broadly at things when it's convenient, and too narrowly when it's also convenient. It's not about competing with all of Apple, it would be about a company coming in and competing with the really portable ipod market that you are talking about Apple not caring about and abandoning. Also, Apple should care about what I the consumer want. Consumers are the ones buying the products, and it's supposedly their opinions that go into what features the products have as well as the company evaluating what is beneficial for the product to have mass appeal. If they truly want a mass appeal product, then they would take into consideration that design principle I mentioned earlier, which you didn't seem to give much credence to, as that would really be the way to get the most possible people interested in a product.
Not really sure what argument you are trying to make. Nobody said anything about the Nano or Shuffle going away. Apple will make more money on cloud services than disc-based iPods. Those are already obsolete. Everything will be flash storage. Why would Apple make a high capacity flash device when it will be too expensive and not many people will buy one?
Since I first got my iPhone, I always streamed music because I can carry all 200 GB of it in my pocket and the only songs I have on the disk are like my band and records I'm studying at the moment.
As for on board storage… It willhave to at least stay where it's at so you can run all the apps you have in an instant regardless of where you are.
Flash storage will certainly stay at its current levels, currently topped out at 64GB on the iPod Touch. I could even see Q4 iPhones hitting 64GB and Q4 iPod Touch models hitting 128GB. It really depends on the flash prices Apple has locked in.
I just don't see a 256GB flash iPod Touch or iPhone this year. More importantly, I don't see a huge demand for it. Look at Apple's last quarterly report. More than 50 percent of iPods sold were iPod Touch models, showing that people are fine with iPods that 64GB or less.
I see that.
I have all the space I really need with 16GB and I obviously see the benefit of the iCloud.
I think the flash storage thing in the future all depends on the leap they take towards gaming. They could have even better games if they raise the size cap for developers. In order to do that, people would need the on board storage to accommodate that and everything else.
So… I'm interested in what the next, next move is.
Last time I checked, the iOS file size limit is 2GB. I'm not sure if that has been increased recently. That seems more than adequate for today's hardware and I'm sure the size will go up in the future as the hardware gets more powerful. Certainly more space will be needed when the iPad gets retina display graphics.
I don't see a 128 or 256 Touch for at least 3 years. With wifi syncing and iCloud it will make it more likely they will rely on end users managing apps locally on a Touch and pulling down other apps as needed.
I do think your rationale of people are fine with 64gb or less based on Touch sales is misleading. If iPod classic and Nano were sold in 64gb flavors for comparison it would be accurate. Seeing as how one of these devices has a touchscreen and access to the app store, it really makes them different products. The classic is simply for music. The Touch is multifunctional.
I disagree with 128GB being three years away. It's at 64GB now. Why it would it take three years to double capacity, especially at the premiums Apple charges. Look at the cost difference between the 32GB and 64GB iPad models, for example.
Fair point about the Touch sales, but number still illustrate that the Touch is far more important than the other iPod models and that percentage will grow. Another number to keep in mind is that iPod sales are down year-to-year, further showing that the iPhone and iPad are much more important than the iPod.
I put it at 3 due to a conservative estimate. I think the iPad will receive the larger NAND bump before the iPhone and Touch. I really think Apple wants to push the “sim less” devices in order to expand the memory. Just my thoughts on the matter though.I agree that the Touch is the most important in the mp3 player segment for them. Followed by the Nano. I don't think that the sales are down on iPods year to year due to other iOS devices alone though. Apple makes durable products so it's not like ppl are replacing them every two years. Add in the fact that there are other online music retailers out there now and the iPod isn't necessarily the only game in town. I'd say that competition outside of Apple is just as big a culprit as the Touch eating sales.Personally I thought the classic should have been shown the door when 2nd gen Touch models came out. I do think it is interesting that they keep a legacy device like that on sale though.Sent from my iMac
The iPod segment as a whole is the only area where Apple is down year-to-year. For portable devices, iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch sales are growing rapidly. I wouldn't say the entire iPod line is durable either. iPod Classics are using spinning discs and the clock is always ticking on those. Certainly the Nano and Shuffle are much more durable.
I wasn't trying for anything specific at first, but then I was giving a rebuttal to the points you tried to make. Yes there may be more money in the cloud services rather than disc-based ipods. However, I have not seen anything in any cloud based storage service that makes me think that it would be an adequate amount of space. The ipod classic already has a decent storage space size, it would just have to be modified for an ipod touch/iphone. Just like any other product that is made the cost of production would decrease as time went on. Also, I doubt that not many people would buy them. I have not seen anything that is an Apple product that makes me think people wouldn't buy them, no matter what it is.
I don't think you understand the cost difference between lines. The iPod Classic uses a disc drive. That's why they're cheap and the storage capacity is high. I sincerely doubt that Apple is going to use older and more fragile tech like that in the iPhone and iPod Touch.
A 256GB iPod Touch or iPhone would probably be too expensive in 2011 given the current prices of flash memory. Furthermore, I don't see the demand for it. If capacity is a primary concern then the iPod Classic would be selling better.
It would also be bulky as hell… Like the Zune.
I think Samsung has 128GB chips that are small. I'm sure Jonny Ives could come up with a slick design that uses two of them…but it would still be expensive.
I was referring to the disc based storage.
Flash is absolutely the way to go until something better comes to life.
I'm hoping for nanobots in my ears.
From my research, iCloud is 5GB+ of free storage for all users. That + is there because it does not count purchased music, apps, or your photo stream against the cap.
That alone… Is an awesome service. I don't see it as something I'd use as a crutch as much as I'd use it as roller-skates. Something I don't need, but is nice to have.
There is no mention of movies. I could see movies filling up 5+GB real fast and give the stream problems. But… With Lion, any recent Mac can be used as a server and there's still Zumocast which will not only stream to the devices, but any web browser as well.
If your question is "is it possible for Apple to have all the storage it needs?"… Just looking at web hosts like GoDaddy and Siteground should answer that. Server storage is a total non-issue. Would have been in the 90's… But not now… Especially for a giant like Apple.
@ Ray
Okay.
But I still don't see them pushing off the Touch market. It just doesn't make sense to me.
There's more money to be made if the option is available.
I wonder what Divnich would think about this?
I see the Touch staying too, but my friend argues that it makes no sense to put R&D money into new Touch models when old iPhones can be sold for the same price.
Why make new models until the market demands it?
I know this isn't the way Apple has been rolling, but it could be.
Apple has never operated that way. One of the company's strengths is knowing what people want before they want it. Additionally, the company has been aggressive with dropping things before they're obsolete. Dropping floppy disks, the shaky launch of OS X, the shaky launch of Final Cut Pro X, etc. are just some examples.
Traditionally, Apple has refreshed the iPod line in September to get holiday sales. That's changing now with the iPhone becoming the Q4 centerpiece.
Touch will stay. Apple will use the Touch to create a home console of sorts. It will use airplay to play games on the television.
Besides, iCloud doesn't solve storage issues as much as it creates billing issues with 2GB next gen wireless internet caps. yes….that is a stab at f'n LTE with a 2gb cap.
I think the iPod as a music player will become less significant as time goes on but there is a market and always has been a market for music players. That won't change because one device can do it all. I have a nano for when I work out. My iPhone is too big. If Apple didn't have the nano, I'd buy someone else's small mp3 player.
@ Ray
I could also see the R&D for both the iPhone and Touch being almost the same, except certain things just left off the Touch.
It's mostly the same, but it adds time and costs to manufacture a different product. The argument is that this would make Apple more efficient.
Syncing my iPad for the first time in more than a month. The process is stupid and takes way too long.
Hmm it says there are 27 comments but its "Showing 0 Comments"? i assume the other were put in prior to the change over.
The import is still processing. The true counts should appear after it's finished.