Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPod New iPods soon?

POLOgt said:
What? Why would you not want to profit in business???
Of course they are making a killing...

Where is your proof of them calling it a "break even" operation? Just assumed? ;)
Click to expand...

I'm basing that on Apple's own statements made, primarily, during the quarterly earnings teleconferences. They are content to operate the App Store (like ITMS) on a break even basis in the belief that they help drive hardware sales. If they do make money on either operation - and I didn't say that they don't - that's just gravy.

Razors or video game consoles are sold at a loss in order for you to be locked in for blades and software. Gillette and Nintendo don't look at that as a loss, simply driving larger profits. This is similar, except that it is "cheap" media to drive hardware. Same result.
 
I would bet that a 160Gb flash drive would be about $600. No one would buy it and I bet that the classic is going away all together (maybe not this next generation but after that....). Most people don't keep their entire library with them at all times. I've got an old 80Gb iPod video (first gen and still kickin!) that has about 55Gigs on it. My library is about 95Gigs total, but I've found that I enjoy switching out what music I'm listening to every week or so. And actually because mine is so old I'm trying to avoid changing what's on there, that disk has got to be just waiting to die. Anyways, my next iPod will be a touch (16 gig will give me more than enough stuff to listen to for a week). In my opinion this is probably what a majority of users will do.

So if Apple went this direction it would let them get rid of the classic all together and focus on the "hipper" touch. Which also lets people get on their app store.
 
We ( I work for Walmart) just placed all iPod on clearance. I have no idea if this was a mistake, the price change was given to us by the home office.
They only took $2 each model. We have no info on any new iPod's.
 
Man, I get so sick of people on this form saying things " why would anyone need that much music?", "organize and use playlists", etc. I thought the entire persona that apple was trying to put out was "it's all about the user", "choice",and whatever other San fransisco hippy crap there is. I want my entire library in my pocket- it didn't fit on the 30gb, it didn't fit on the 60gb, it didn't fit on the 80gb, so they gave me an 120gb. Why?
Because that's what I needed. Now I need more.

If you want to spend time making playlist to sync with your nano or you 16gb iPhone, that's fine. I want it all with me all the time. I want to pull up any song I have at any time I want when I'm in the carwith my friends.

If I'm in the mood for some old school punk, it's there. I I want to listen hank Williams, it's there. If I want to (for ungodly reason) listen to Brittany spears, yeah I got that too.

Piss off with all your "you don't need that much space, music, etc. My music, my time, my mood, my tastes, etc, etc, etc

I for one would love a portable 300+ gb music/video solution.
 
txr0ckabilly said:
Then again, I'm 2 bottles of wine in so please ignore my rants and my poor iPhone thumb typing . . . .
Click to expand...

Well I'm willing to bet that with 300 gigs of space you'd still end up listening to the same 100 albums over and over. People tend to forget the joys of having a small collection to chose from. I recall the enjoyment of having a friend in the car that brought a new favorite album, and taking the long way to listen to it all the way through.

Maybe I'm just a romantic.
 
You'd be wrong

I'm sorry, you are just wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Other people are different from you.

I've got about 2700 albums ripped losslessly (out of a much more substantial collection) and I've got an 8gb nano I use for the gym and train. Believe me, many many times I wish I could listen to some particular album that I don't have on my nano. With the nano, I can put, you know, a few new releases, a few jazz things, a few blues things, a few prewar country things, a few hardcore things, a few metal things, a few indie rock things, a few classical things, a few classic rock things, a few new wave things, a few drone/minimalism things, a few punk things, a few post-punk things, few hip hop things, a few free jazz things, a few new wave things, a few proto-punk things, a few heavy psych things, a math rock thing or two, a singer-songwriter thing or two, etc.

I'm sorry, a hundred or two albums is frankly impoverished. Thats how many records I took to college 20 years ago. Yeah, some of those weren't excellent, but if I want to hear Rush again, I want to hear Rush again, for Pete sake.

For that reason I also have my entire collection in mp3 on a portable hard drive which I use in the library, where I spend a lot of time. I also carry a big heavy expensive pair of headphones so that I can enjoy that music more. Believe me, I listen to at least 100 albums in a month, and probably only 20 of them will be repeat plays from the last few months.
 
I solved my capacity problem by getting two iPods. I have a 160GB for music and a 120GB for video.

I only bought two because my car stereo has an iPod hookup and plays music and videos through it's own screen.
 
When the last iPods came out I bought 2 160GB Classics from Sam's Club, one for me, one for my husband. I bought the last two they had and got them to mark them down to $210. They live in our cars. I have a ton of music too. I don't understand why they reduced the storage size of the classic last fall, so I too am curious if a new large capacity iPod will come out this time.
 
Foxer said:
I'm basing that on Apple's own statements made, primarily, during the quarterly earnings teleconferences. They are content to operate the App Store (like ITMS) on a break even basis in the belief that they help drive hardware sales. If they do make money on either operation - and I didn't say that they don't - that's just gravy.

Razors or video game consoles are sold at a loss in order for you to be locked in for blades and software. Gillette and Nintendo don't look at that as a loss, simply driving larger profits. This is similar, except that it is "cheap" media to drive hardware. Same result.
Click to expand...


This actually makes sense to me - you presented this really well. Thanks.
 
MacLadybug said:
When the last iPods came out I bought 2 160GB Classics from Sam's Club, one for me, one for my husband. I bought the last two they had and got them to mark them down to $210. They live in our cars. I have a ton of music too. I don't understand why they reduced the storage size of the classic last fall, so I too am curious if a new large capacity iPod will come out this time.
Click to expand...

Apple is obsessed with making things thinner - and the 160GB was apparently "too thick" for their liking. There is also the fact that the 160GB iPod classic was the worst selling iPod ever. Yes, people bought it, and yes, some people "needed" it; but it's sales weren't high enough to warrant continuing it's production. Once a 160+GB device can be slimmed down a bit more (which shouldn't be too long, considering the 120GB classic is the same thickness as the old 80GB), I wouldn't be surprised if Apple bumped it up a bit more.
 
michael.lauden said:
IMHO the iPod is dead, and the iPod touch reigns supreme. i can't stand using iPod's any more!!!
Click to expand...

A bit contradictory considering the iPod touch IS an iPod...maybe you should take notice of the suffixes that now apply to each individual model, hmmm?

:p

I'm just kidding :)
 
MacLadybug said:
You're right. You think they will ever make the iPhone 120GB or is that way too nuts?
Click to expand...

Well it'd be more 128GB than anything (say, four 32GB or two 64GB chips...once they come down in price, far too expensive at the moment) as it uses flash as opposed to a moving hard drive like in the classic, it may be a possibility but they'd have to rework the internals to fit the extra chips in - apparently the reason there's a 32GB iPod touch and not a 32GB iPhone is because there's already so much stuff inside the iPhone that they can't fit in the two necessary 16GB chips.

So as for a much higher capacity iPhone, I'd say it'd be a few years at least, if it ever happens; prices right now for that much memory are rather ridiculous, and would push up production, and therefore purchasing, costs quite significantly.
 
ericinboston said:
I'd hate to switch to a non-Apple device but I'm going nuts here with this poky hard-drive based system in 2009. I have never looked at the Zune but maybe it's time...
Click to expand...

WTF?! :confused: The current 120GB Zune is also hard-drive based...the 16GB Zune is the equivalent of the 16GB nano, flash-based. BY THE WAY, ZUNES SUCK! (Sorry, couldn't resist!) :D Not to mention that if you have a Mac as your only computer, you'll need to have Boot Camp to use the Zune.

I might be wrong, but there is yet to be a flash-based MP3 player with a capacity over 32GB...because flash memory, although it's getting gradually cheaper, is still really, really, really, really expensive compared to hard drives. ;)
 
I expect the next iPod nano to be available in 16 and 32 GB versions. It will probably look almost exactly like the current 4G nano, but with a very slightly larger case to accommodate more flash memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back