iPod The iPod is dead.

[Scepticalscribe]

Thanks for sharing your experiences. I have been getting CDs for the longest, and really want to get something that can utilize them directly instead of just treating them like a physical storage option. I would like a nice old-school quality CD playback system.

I was in 2011, yes, I'm 22 currently. Back then it had more of a purpose because a lot of my friends had cars without many playback options beyond CDs, so I would lend my burns to those with similar music taste.

The geezer thing was just me teasing - I often am referred to as "old school" given that I still use CDs as someone in his early 20s in 2015 where the digital world is being realized. I just never cared for it. I like physical media, just like I prefer paperbacks over ebooks.

I can see what you mean as far as accumulation - but even since getting CDs for the last 10 years or so I still have only amounted to ~20 GB of music. I'd like to have more - it just gets pricey.

It doesn't help that 2015 is booming with new releases from all of my favorite bands and such. Curse the music industry.

'Old school'.. I must say that I rather like that. Wear it with pride. I do.

Well, if you are referred to as 'old school', this is a term I will happily reach for myself, in such matters. Without apology, I will describe myself as 'old school'.

And here is one of the things about possessing collections of books and music, that our young clutter free, and paper free colleagues will never quite grasp. Apart from personal libraries (amply stocked with both books and music) being viewed (by me) as a mark of civilised living, there is another element of this to consider and it is this: When you meet someone for the first time, or have been invited into their private space, or home, for the first time, in the 'olden days' you would (well, I would) invariably take a rapid trawl - or cast a quick eye - over the contents of their book shelves or music collections. This gave you some insight as to their tastes, or preferences, or interests.

Unfortunately, gesturing to your Kindle, or vaguely referring to the Cloud as playing host to your rentier model of musical consumption, does little to throw light on your musical or literary preferences. And that is an enormous pity.

Mind you, this sort of detailed musical inspection, (female friends reported the usual male howl "whaddya mean - you like Supertramp and/or Genesis' - both anathema to Males Who Prided Themselves On Their Taste) or minute examination of the collected tomes of the printed word on someone else's shelves, may well be something which has long fallen out of fashion. Too bad. It was a very useful short cut into identifying what helped to make someone tick intellectually, and gave an insight into their mental landscape. Which is often an interesting exploration in itself...

 

[Dark Void]

"Wannabe Geezer"? LOL. Don't look at my iTunes library, just even my most Recently Added makes me look out of touch for a 26 year-old!

I used to watch videos on my iPod. I've watched them on my Nano. If I was serious about it, I'd rather the iPod Touch/iPad/or just use the computer for playback.

LOL, this is turning out to be a poor choice of words I suppose. I'm just trying to say that I'm old school! I used a Sony Walkman until I was 18, which was 4 years ago.

I buy albums. That right there is enough for the hipsters to jump on me. YOU DON'T TORRENT BRUH? If I go to any local store and place a CD on the counter I'm looked at as if I forgot to put my clothes on before I ventured out of the house.

'Old school'.. I must say that I rather like that. Wear it with pride. I do.

Well, if you are referred to as 'old school', this is a term I will happily reach for myself, in such matters. Without apology, I will describe myself as 'old school'.

And here is one of the things about possessing collections of books and music, that our young clutter free, and paper free colleagues will never quite grasp. Apart from personal libraries (amply stocked with both books and music) being viewed (by me) as a mark of civilised living, there is another element of this to consider and it is this: When you meet someone for the first time, or have been invited into their private space, or home, for the first time, in the 'olden days' you would (well, I would) invariably take a rapid trawl - or cast a quick eye - over the contents of their book shelves or music collections. This gave you some insight as to their tastes, or preferences, or interests.

Unfortunately, gesturing to your Kindle, or vaguely referring to the Cloud as playing host to your rentier model of musical consumption, does little to throw light on your musical or literary preferences. And that is an enormous pity.

Mind you, this sort of detailed musical inspection, (female friends reported the usual male howl "whaddya mean - you like Supertramp and/or Genesis' - both anathema to Males Who Prided Themselves On Their Taste) or minute examination of the collected tomes of the printed word on someone else's shelves, may well be something which has long fallen out of fashion. Too bad. It was a very useful short cut into identifying what helped to make someone tick intellectually, and gave an insight into their mental landscape. Which is often an interesting exploration in itself...

I most certainly will! I'm proud of my development, and not just because it is different from the norm. I can actually give reasoning as to why I prefer what I prefer as opposed to others in my age group that simply follow along with their big wooly sheep stares.

You sir, are well versed. I'm having trouble keeping up here ... let's see. I can see what you're saying. I wouldn't knock anyone's preferences however, and I'm not stating that you're doing that here either. I'm not going to suggest physical media is correct and/or streaming is wrong. It's all relative to the user much like anything else. I find enjoyment in my old school tech, and I'm proud that I have my own developed taste. I've tried the alternatives like I have stated, and that's great in my view, which gives me more of a supporting argument as opposed to just stating that I am not interested in something that I have never given a chance.

I must say, your posts are making me regret ditching my original CDs even more. I'm hating on myself pretty hard right now. I had some pretty good sets, and really wish I still had them. Repurchasing them is just not an option, but burned copies will just have to suffice. I don't have any of the original boxes for my DVDs - but at least I still have the actual discs. Those I will never get rid of as they are more complicated to burn.

 

[Jessica Lares]

I would think hipsters would be into 8-tracks, cassettes, and vinyls. Not that I'm not into vinyl, I have some, but they take up space, and the last one I was interested in buying was a two track remix EP that would have cost me $50.

I order CDs off Amazon, it gets harder to find stuff in stores these days.

I have tried streaming too... Pandora/Slacker are just not interesting. I laugh at people complaining about Beats 1 because that's how radio should sound. I used to tune into Mr. Lowe's show a lot when he was on the BBC, good banter, and good music!

I like discovering music, think curation is great, but I don't think it's necessary to pay for it. You can import your library into Spotify or Rdio to get recommendations, but then it would be easy to get the same thing with your iTunes library and Genius (which they used to do with the bar back in the day - I have a feeling it's coming back since we can heart local stuff).

 

[sracer]

I must say, your posts are making me regret ditching my original CDs even more. I'm hating on myself pretty hard right now. I had some pretty good sets, and really wish I still had them. Repurchasing them is just not an option, but burned copies will just have to suffice. I don't have any of the original boxes for my DVDs - but at least I still have the actual discs. Those I will never get rid of as they are more complicated to burn.

I suppose that you can consider it, "lesson learned".

I'm not into digital renting/purchasing. Approximately 1/3 of the music that I have on CDs have been removed from the jewel cases to save space. I saved the cover art, inserts, CD, etc. and donated the jewel cases. Same with DVDs. I have a fixed amount of space in my "media vault" (a closet dedicated to the storage and display of my physical media). Discs that don't fit, are placed in binders (with the cover art and inserts).

I would think hipsters would be into 8-tracks, cassettes, and vinyls. Not that I'm not into vinyl, I have some, but they take up space, and the last one I was interested in buying was a two track remix EP that would have cost me $50.

I'm into vinyl, but I wouldn't buy new (new releases or new pressings of older albums) There is so much out there on vinyl that was never and will never be seen on newer media. THAT is where the fun of exploration and "music discovery" is at for me. "Thrifting for Tunes" by visiting places like GoodWill, Salvation Army, flea markets, etc. I buy these albums for $1 (or less). If they're good I'll keep 'em, if not, I'll donate them. Those albums that I'll want portable, I'll record them to MP3s.

 

[Suture]

I still keep an iPod Nano in my car. I save my absolute favorite songs/albums to it. However, I usually just stream the tracks from my iPhone via iTunes Match. The audio quality is better over Bluetooth in my car than the MDI cable/iPod combo, but it's nice to have a fallback in case I didn't have my iPhone or no signal.

I don't blame Apple for not marketing the iPod more. Everyone has one now it seems, and there doesn't seem to be much to update really, especially since most are probably just using their smartphones now.

 

[Dark Void]

I don't blame Apple for not marketing the iPod more. Everyone has one now it seems, and there doesn't seem to be much to update really, especially since most are probably just using their smartphones now.

I remember when you were considered a mouthbreather if you didn't have an iPod. Now it seems like if you own one your house may as well be made out of sticks too.

I hope iPod Touch 6G occurs. The 5th Gen touch is a nice device. I use mine every single day. I still believe there is a decent market for those that want a quality media device and don't need cellular. An iPhone can exist in this manner, but isn't practical to purchase outright with no service contract when comparing it to other options (namely the iPod in the same "Apple family," but also android devices as well) in terms of cost effectiveness. I doubt anyone would pay $500-$600+ dollars just to use an iPhone as a portable media device.

I made a post about this on the touch sub-forum a couple of weeks back, but I personally get the most sense out of an iPod. Granted, it takes others in my life using iPhones/Apple for it to work, but I exploit that niche to the best of my ability. There is WiFi in all places that I would commonly be, and I used Messages on an iPod Touch (I still use it as my primary "Phone") to keep in touch with everyone through more standard SMS type messaging. I used a smartphone up until I noticed that all of the people I cared to talk to used iPhones or other Apple products.

I realize this is a rare occurrence but even without that niche there are still some that want a high quality media device with extra features that they don't have to pay for monthly or purchase outright for a larger amount.

 

[Suture]

That's a good point. Additionally with wifi calling available in apps, I could see where taking an iPod Touch overseas could be handy with all the free wifi access points.

 

[Jessica Lares]

I saved 10 GB of photos and video yesterday to my iPhone, yes, that much in ONE day. Can only imagine how it'd be like to stick a 64GB iTunes library in a 128 GB device, 54 GB would be left (not including the space iOS takes and the fact that in total my photo library is 20 GB, so then it's less than 40 GB left). Add that on top of my doodles in Procreate, screenshots, growing app databases, etc, etc.

Having them separate is just easier. Yesterday I actually had a hard time getting a video out of my iPhone. It timed out on me for whatever reason. That leaves room for things to get corrupted, which I don't want in either device. My Genius playlists disappeared this afternoon too.

Anyway... I'm off to go shoot another gigabyte of stuff on my iPhone. Ciao.

 

[tentales]

So many well made points here. Agreed, I don't trust the Cloud, either and much prefer the concept of owning my own music.

Yes, I, too, have a great many rare and unusual stuff picked up on my travels, stuff that cannot be replicated elsewhere; and, while my musical tastes are pretty eclectic, there are a great many things I like which are not remotely mainstream.

Actually, I am the sort that if I see a band, or group, or musician, playing music on the street, an, if they happen to be pretty good (or better still, extremely good) I will almost always buy a CD from them. Talented musicians deserve to be supported, and I have gotten some amazing gypsy music, Russian music, Balkan music, Japanese music, South American music, piano music, guitar music, flute music, strange and incredible music composed by the guys and women playing it - I have bought it all.

Years ago, a few years after I had bought my iPod, I remember paying a visit or two to the the Apple iTunes library, and looking long and hard for the sort of obscure music I like, or particular tracks, or albums. The problem is, I don't like popular music, for the most part, and the sort of stuff that I do like, is not what makes markets quiver with excitement in anticipation of a record dividend yield.

The point is the first few times I visited the Apple library - granted, this was years ago - there had nothing that I wanted to buy, and the stuff that did interest me, they didn't have.

And your point about connectivity is well made. Apple does indeed assume that everyone lives in a first world city with superb connectivity; most of my work over the past decade has been in countries that have been anything but that, where internet connections are unreliable and erratic.



Very well said.

You've stated in several posts that you prefer to "own" your "own music". I feel the need to correct your misconception.

Unless you produce your "own" music (ie. are a musician or producer) you NEVER own the music. You buy a personal right-to-use license.
The only thing that has changed from the past to today is the physical medium. The delivering agent of audio material.
Whether it's magnetic tape, vinyl records, CDs or hard drive, USB sticks or SSDs. These days you purchases a digital representation of an artists performance, but you still purchases the physical medium seperately upon which you store the recording and subsequently listen to it.

What is entirely new, is the rental/streaming model where you pay the artist/label a fee for temporary access to their product. That used to be free and it was called FM Radio but you had no choice of music selection.
So, back to your (and my) preference of a dedicated portable device.

Before you knee-jerk refuse an iPhone in your consideration, consider this:
Seeing you've considered AK players costing multiple thousands of dollars, may I suggest a single iPhone 6 or 6+ with 128GB storage in Airplane or non-cellular mode. Think of an iPhone as an iPod touch with a radio chip that can also be used as a phone. Just because it's called an "iPhone", doesn't mean you can't use it as a dedicated music/video player.
The phone is just another App that you can choose to turn on or not.

On your travels you can listen to your 90GB music library thru the headphones and at home stream it via Airplay (lossless if u wish) to an Airplay-capable device, possibly feed the digital signal thru a dedicated DAC and enjoy it on your fine B&W speakers.

The iPod classic is dead and because of its spinning discs was always in danger of failing sooner than NAND storage, not to mention weight. Now, I would also like to see an iPod Touch with an A8 or A9 chip down the road with 128GB or even 256GB storage to save the cost of the GSM/LTE chip, but in the end, if you have the dough, the current top iPhone is a superb music player. Try it!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

You've stated in several posts that you prefer to "own" your "own music". I feel the need to correct your misconception.

Unless you produce your "own" music (ie. are a musician or producer) you NEVER own the music. You buy a personal right-to-use license.
The only thing that has changed from the past to today is the physical medium. The delivering agent of audio material.
Whether it's magnetic tape, vinyl records, CDs or hard drive, USB sticks or SSDs. These days you purchases a digital representation of an artists performance, but you still purchases the physical medium seperately upon which you store the recording and subsequently listen to it.

What is entirely new, is the rental/streaming model where you pay the artist/label a fee for temporary access to their product. That used to be free and it was called FM Radio but you had no choice of music selection.
So, back to your (and my) preference of a dedicated portable device.

Before you knee-jerk refuse an iPhone in your consideration, consider this:
Seeing you've considered AK players costing multiple thousands of dollars, may I suggest a single iPhone 6 or 6+ with 128GB storage in Airplane or non-cellular mode. Think of an iPhone as an iPod touch with a radio chip that can also be used as a phone. Just because it's called an "iPhone", doesn't mean you can't use it as a dedicated music/video player.
The phone is just another App that you can choose to turn on or not.

On your travels you can listen to your 90GB music library thru the headphones and at home stream it via Airplay (lossless if u wish) to an Airplay-capable device, possibly feed the digital signal thru a dedicated DAC and enjoy it on your fine B&W speakers.

The iPod classic is dead and because of its spinning discs was always in danger of failing sooner than NAND storage, not to mention weight. Now, I would also like to see an iPod Touch with an A8 or A9 chip down the road with 128GB or even 256GB storage to save the cost of the GSM/LTE chip, but in the end, if you have the dough, the current top iPhone is a superb music player. Try it!

When I mean 'own', I mean that there is no attempt to limit my access to the music I have paid to be able to play. Unless i seek to make profit from it, once I have paid for it, I can play it on any device - turntable, tape cassette, CD, CD-RW, or iPod that I choose as often as I care to.

The rentier model - where you pay for temporary right of access - while having the potential to be extraordinarily profitable - does not remotely interest me and is predicated on sturdy internet connections, and a recurring fee.

I have no intention of buying an iPhone to use as anything other than a phone - the damed things cost far too much not to use them for the primary purpose for which they were designed. At the moment, I don't even have one as a phone (although I may have to amend my stance on that), as my phone is an antique Nokia.

Now, it may surprise some, but I have no interest whatsoever in acquiring a device to play my music that is not specifically designed to do that, and just that.

I take your point about the HDD of the old iPod classic - as two of mine died (while still under warranty, and were replaced without a murmur or an attempt to seek refuge in the small print of an insanely detailed contract, which is one of the main reasons - apart from the sheer excellence of the iPod, its splendid portability and ease of use in matters such as syncing) as a result of HDD failure, and I believe that this was an issue for a small, but statistically significant number of iPod classics.

However, a nice SSD drive might solve that particular problem.

 

[sracer]

You've stated in several posts that you prefer to "own" your "own music". I feel the need to correct your misconception.

Unless you produce your "own" music (ie. are a musician or producer) you NEVER own the music. You buy a personal right-to-use license.

That is a difference without a distinction and not actually relevant to the topic at hand.

The only thing that has changed from the past to today is the physical medium. The delivering agent of audio material.
Whether it's magnetic tape, vinyl records, CDs or hard drive, USB sticks or SSDs. These days you purchases a digital representation of an artists performance, but you still purchases the physical medium seperately upon which you store the recording and subsequently listen to it.

What is entirely new, is the rental/streaming model where you pay the artist/label a fee for temporary access to their product. That used to be free and it was called FM Radio but you had no choice of music selection.

This is not "entirely new". Music rental has been around for at least 5 years or so in digital form, and years before that in physical form.

So, back to your (and my) preference of a dedicated portable device. Before you knee-jerk refuse an iPhone in your consideration, consider this:
Seeing you've considered AK players costing multiple thousands of dollars, may I suggest a single iPhone 6 or 6+ with 128GB storage in Airplane or non-cellular mode. Think of an iPhone as an iPod touch with a radio chip that can also be used as a phone. Just because it's called an "iPhone", doesn't mean you can't use it as a dedicated music/video player.
The phone is just another App that you can choose to turn on or not.

On your travels you can listen to your 90GB music library thru the headphones and at home stream it via Airplay (lossless if u wish) to an Airplay-capable device, possibly feed the digital signal thru a dedicated DAC and enjoy it on your fine B&W speakers.

The iPod classic is dead and because of its spinning discs was always in danger of failing sooner than NAND storage, not to mention weight. Now, I would also like to see an iPod Touch with an A8 or A9 chip down the road with 128GB or even 256GB storage to save the cost of the GSM/LTE chip, but in the end, if you have the dough, the current top iPhone is a superb music player. Try it!

Your suggestion appears to completely ignore the unique aspects of dedicated portable media players like the iPod Classic, iPod Nano, and such. At the top of that list are the physical buttons that control playback. You are far from being alone in that view. Many people think that the iPod Touch is a replacement for the iPod Classic, Nano, and Shuffle.

Using an iPhone 6 or 6+ as a dedicated portable media player is quite an unwise financial decision. Even if one is looking to spend even more than that on a dedicated player.

If one is willing to "make do" with a touch screen device for portable media playback, I could see someone advocating the use of an Android smartphone... that can be completely gutted of it's phone system/software components and customized specifically to be a dedicated PMP.

 

[leroypants]

Apple killed the Ipod classic to force people to pay monthly to stream or pay for the garbage that is itunes match.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Apple killed the Ipod classic to force people to pay monthly to stream or pay for the garbage that is itunes match.

Well, I have reluctantly come to much the same conclusion and have been making this very argument for the past few months.

 

[Dark Void]

You've stated in several posts that you prefer to "own" your "own music". I feel the need to correct your misconception.

Unless you produce your "own" music (ie. are a musician or producer) you NEVER own the music. You buy a personal right-to-use license.
The only thing that has changed from the past to today is the physical medium. The delivering agent of audio material.
Whether it's magnetic tape, vinyl records, CDs or hard drive, USB sticks or SSDs. These days you purchases a digital representation of an artists performance, but you still purchases the physical medium seperately upon which you store the recording and subsequently listen to it.

What is entirely new, is the rental/streaming model where you pay the artist/label a fee for temporary access to their product. That used to be free and it was called FM Radio but you had no choice of music selection.
So, back to your (and my) preference of a dedicated portable device.

Before you knee-jerk refuse an iPhone in your consideration, consider this:
Seeing you've considered AK players costing multiple thousands of dollars, may I suggest a single iPhone 6 or 6+ with 128GB storage in Airplane or non-cellular mode. Think of an iPhone as an iPod touch with a radio chip that can also be used as a phone. Just because it's called an "iPhone", doesn't mean you can't use it as a dedicated music/video player.
The phone is just another App that you can choose to turn on or not.

On your travels you can listen to your 90GB music library thru the headphones and at home stream it via Airplay (lossless if u wish) to an Airplay-capable device, possibly feed the digital signal thru a dedicated DAC and enjoy it on your fine B&W speakers.

The iPod classic is dead and because of its spinning discs was always in danger of failing sooner than NAND storage, not to mention weight. Now, I would also like to see an iPod Touch with an A8 or A9 chip down the road with 128GB or even 256GB storage to save the cost of the GSM/LTE chip, but in the end, if you have the dough, the current top iPhone is a superb music player. Try it!

Nobody who just wants a high quality portable media player is going to pay $500-$600+ for a retail iPhone, even if it has the ability to be serviced. Some people don't care for that ability.

You're not the first person to think of using a smartphone as a media device. It's just not practical if that is all you're buying it for.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Nobody who just wants a high quality portable media player is going to pay $500-$600+ for a retail iPhone, even if it has the ability to be serviced. Some people don't care for that ability.

You're not the first person to think of using a smartphone as a media device. It's just not practical if that is all you're buying it for.

How right you are, and I remain pretty astonished that some people find this so hard to understand.

Some of us just want a device that plays music, - and has been designed to play music - and nothing else. That means a high end device, with decent capacity, excellent battery and outstanding audio with intuitive and intelligent controls. It helps if such a device has been designed to be attractive, aesthetically and in terms of the sheer, physical pleasure to be had from the experience of actually using it.

Is that so hard to understand?

ps: Once upon a distant time, the iPod classic actually met most of these criteria…

 

[Dark Void]

Is that so hard to understand?

Apparently so. It always blows my mind when people talk about a smartphone being capable as a media device as if they were the first to think of it. People use android devices solely as media players all of the time. You can get a decent $100-$200 unlocked android device that will act as a quality media player, but..

When it boils down to it, if I want a modern, handheld WiFi capable iOS device with spacious choices of capacity that has the ability to record FHD video, take more than decent photographs, and is integrated in the Apple ecosystem as far as OS and polished applications like iTunes/Music - I choose iPod Touch. The only downside in comparing this to android devices is the lack of removable storage - but that isn't an issue if you know what you need.

But with that aside, we are talking about an iPhone here, I have no desire for a $600 iPhone that will do the same when I can get a $200 iPod Touch. I don't care about making cellular phone calls.

If I did, sure, perhaps I would consider an iPhone or other equivalent. Before I discovered the niche that is the iPod Touch, I had a Samsung Galaxy S3 much like the rest of the world that I used as an all purposes device. I ditched it when I realized that all of my contacts were within the apple ecosystem. I've saved hundreds, if not thousands since then. Relying on WiFi isn't ideal for most but for me it's worth the money that I save - I'm not on call for anything work related or important. The highest priority thing that I am obligated to respond to is what friggin' clothes my girlfriend is deciding between for dinner or whatever cat picture she likes on the internet.

 

[tentales]

That is a difference without a distinction and not actually relevant to the topic at hand.

Ahh, the philosopher's trilemma argument when disagreeing with someone's point. Except, the correct fallacy would be "distinction without a difference".

Nevertheless there is a difference. Like many axioms, I understand what Scepticalscribe meant by "own" the music, but clearly there IS a difference between ownership of a piece of Music and the transport medium.

It's relevant because Scepticalscribe made the point that iTunes downloaded music is not the same ownership as physical media. This is only true in the rental model, but as you point out below, renting music has been around for a long time also. Purchasing music, ie. the media in either physical or digital form has not really changed. It's just that the legal framework around it is now more complicated.

Say you burn the digital purchase to a CD and then sell that CD to a friend, from a moral standpoint you must delete your digital copy even though the licensor did not give you the right to burn & sell because the distribution format was not sanctioned. Hence, the old model of vinyl records and CDs was simple in that the license was attached to the physical format and hence, transferrable.

In that regard, I agree with Scepticalscribe that we lament the lack of that form of ownership and demand the industry allow us to resell any purchase whether in physical or digital form, especially since the personal-right-use framework hasn't really changed much.

This is not "entirely new". Music rental has been around for at least 5 years or so in digital form, and years before that in physical form.

Splitting hairs. By "new" I wasn't referring to Apple's jony-come-lately entrance into the streaming/rental market, but new as in the last few years when compared to the 150 or so years of recording technology.

Your suggestion appears to completely ignore the unique aspects of dedicated portable media players like the iPod Classic, iPod Nano, and such. At the top of that list are the physical buttons that control playback. You are far from being alone in that view. Many people think that the iPod Touch is a replacement for the iPod Classic, Nano, and Shuffle.

I'm not ignoring anything. The iPod Classic is dead. Deal with it. Lack of sales and the mainstream preferring touch screen interface without spinning disks sealed its fate. Physical buttons preference is now a niche, much like Tidal streaming is a niche.

Using an iPhone 6 or 6+ as a dedicated portable media player is quite an unwise financial decision. Even if one is looking to spend even more than that on a dedicated player.

Oh c'mon, when was buying any Apple product a wise financial decision ? But if one is willing to drop $2500 on a dedicated audiophile player, don't tell me that spending $900 on an iPhone 6 is unwise. smh.

If one is willing to "make do" with a touch screen device for portable media playback, I could see someone advocating the use of an Android smartphone... that can be completely gutted of it's phone system/software components and customized specifically to be a dedicated PMP.

Maybe "make do" for you. Clearly the majority of users prefer the flexibility of a touch screen device as the hundreds of millions of iPhone sales prove and previously iPod touch over Classic sales. You can't "gut" an Android device anymore than you can take a radio chip out of an iPhone. You can switch to Airplane mode and disable all radios and there are many alternative Apps to the iTunes Music one. I personally like using VOX.

 

[tentales]

How right you are, and I remain pretty astonished that some people find this so hard to understand.

Astonishing because
Some of us just want a device that plays music, - and has been designed to play music - and nothing else. That means a high end device, with decent capacity, excellent battery and outstanding audio with intuitive and intelligent controls. It helps if such a device has been designed to be attractive, aesthetically and in terms of the sheer, physical pleasure to be had from the experience of actually using it.

Is that so hard to understand?

ps: Once upon a distant time, the iPod classic actually met most of these criteria…

It's hard to understand because others don't think like you.
I'm not invalidating your preference, but don't invalidate those others make. Clearly you haven't tried an iPhone as a music player and are lamenting the demise of the iPod classic. Guess what, the spinning disks introduced more audio interference than NAND storage. You just like something "designed for music", but in fact, digital audio circuitry is pretty much the same between iPods and iPhones. Sure, the physical interface is different.

Maybe you'd be happier with the $400 Pono player.
https://www.ponomusic.com

 

[tentales]

Nobody who just wants a high quality portable media player is going to pay $500-$600+ for a retail iPhone, even if it has the ability to be serviced. Some people don't care for that ability.

You're not the first person to think of using a smartphone as a media device. It's just not practical if that is all you're buying it for.

Duh! In 2007 Steve stated, "An iPod, a phone, an internet mobile communicator".
Don't accuse me of claims I never made. People forget, I just reminded someone willing to drop thousands on a dedicated audiophile player that an iPhone could be the ticket, especially since he was pondering the purchase of one to replace his aging Nokia device.

Nobody ? People spend all kinds of money on expensive "toys", just because you wouldn't, doesn't make it so for everyone else.

As with many things in life, there's no one-size-fits-all. I certainly don't proclaim to have the ideal solution, but people can get entrenched in their thought patterns, especially if something worked well for them in the past that now Apple has taken away. Myself included, if you see my other posts, I'm not happy with Apple's choices of late on a lot of things.

 

[Dark Void]

Duh!

Don't accuse me of claims I never made.

Nobody ? People spend all kinds of money on expensive "toys", just because you wouldn't, doesn't make it so for everyone else.

Not sure what you're referring to. Your suggestion of an iPhone "as an iPod with a radio chip that can also be used as a phone" holds no water for someone not interested in such a trait. It's not practical as far as cost - and why you proceed to defend purchasing an iPhone over an iPod and calling it "an expensive toy" if one doesn't care for cellular is beyond me.

To each their own though. If you want to spend three times as much for your dedicated iOS media player along with an idea - that doesn't effect me. I'm not unaware of why people use smartphones as their all purpose devices for both communication and media consumption. I'm just exposing the fact that basically nobody whose interests include a sole media device would do the same as it just plain does not make sense.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

It's hard to understand because others don't think like you.
I'm not invalidating your preference, but don't invalidate those others make. Clearly you haven't tried an iPhone as a music player and are lamenting the demise of the iPod classic. Guess what, the spinning disks introduced more audio interference than NAND storage. You just like something "designed for music", but in fact, digital audio circuitry is pretty much the same between iPods and iPhones. Sure, the physical interface is different.

Maybe you'd be happier with the $400 Pono player.
https://www.ponomusic.com

I don't invalidate the choices that others make, but they are not my choices, and while repeating ad nauseam that the iPod 'is dead' is one thing (and - as someone who suffered two very dead iPod classics on account of the flaws of the old HDD spinning disks committing suicide while still under warranty, I am not blind to the structural failures of that device), adding that lovely online sneer 'deal with it' is just tiresome.

Now, get this: I am not interested in using an iPhone as an audio device; for one thing buying an iPhone when not intending to use it as a phone, strikes even me - and I am profligate with money - as a criminally stupid thing to do.

I don't want a phone; I want a device that will play my music. While I can accept commercial imperatives, I do not care if the demands of fashion and commerce include rentier models and touch pad screens. I don't much care for either, even if they are the future.

Moreover, although I already have an iPod Touch, I am not actually a fan of the touch screen. Yes, it's cool. But I prefer (perish the thought) physical buttons.

I cannot stand the iPad - I had two iPad minis, both maxed out to their respective years, and couldn't stand using them. One I used, and gave away, to a brother who got married last year.

The other, a maxed out mini (128 SSD, retina screen etc etc), went as a Christmas present to my other brother, whom I am very close to. Unfortunately, his car was broken into four weeks ago, the passenger window of his nice new Volvo smashed with a crowbar, and my wonderful Christmas present to him, the maxed out iPad mini, was feloniously removed by some urchin with a penchant for petty theft an eye for opportunity.

My question was rhetorical. If others don't think like me, well, they don't. This is not something I will lose much sleep over; I am not a fashionista, in anything.

Besides, and I don't doubt that Apple has no desire to meet my needs; with regret, I will look elsewhere (and no, not an iPhone; I want a device that just plays music, and I have no intention of paying stupid money for a device that has bells and whistles.)

For music, I want high quality, superb build, no video nonsense, and minimal distraction. And I like physical buttons. 'Deal with it'..

 

[Jessica Lares]

Right now you can get a refurbished 64GB iPod Touch 5th gen for $239.00 directly from Apple. It doesn't get any better than that off-contract for an iPhone of the same spec. Slap on some AppleCare and it's still a great deal.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Right now you can get a refurbished 64GB iPod Touch 5th gen for $239.00 directly from Apple. It doesn't get any better than that off-contract for an iPhone of the same spec. Slap on some AppleCare and it's still a great deal.

But I already have an iPod Touch with 64GB 5th Generation. I have had it for five years, and yes, it is delightful.

However, while it is a fine device, firstly, it cannot transport all of my music library in one compact device, because my iTunes library clocks in at around 90GB, and secondly, strange to relate, I still prefer the iPod classic of all iPods.

Was it perfect? Of course not (that spinning and prone to destruction HDD); but it was beautiful, sturdy, a pleasure to use, and it worked.

I have a perfectly functioning 160 GB iPod classic, and I have another one, brand new, unopened in its sealed box, because I had the foresight to order one before Apple decided to assassinate the device.

So, for now, in truth, I am probably alright; it is just that I am in mourning for one of the most elegant, easy-to-use, delightful and useful pieces of technology ever devised and developed, and that is the iPod.

I would never have come to Apple without the 'halo' effect of the iPod, both the gorgeous device itself, its stunning ease of use (I'm looking at you Microsoft - I cannot begin to count the number of CD-Rs I destroyed while trying to rip and burn music), and the excellent customer care I experienced when that (stupid, yes, I'll concede that) HDD died - twice - on me, both times under warranty, and were replaced without fuss or tantrums, or seeking refuge in incomprehensible contractual small print.

That 'halo' effect brought me to Apple computers. But only the need for a phone with connectivity capacity will bring me to the iPhone.

Besides, I love my antique sturdy Nokia. This isn't a phone that cries if you look sideways at it, or breaks if you drop it by mistake in the pub.

Moreover, I love its insane bloody-minded indestructibility (it is a Nokia 3510, seriously badass and still working perfectly). I love the effortless sneer of derision it provokes from supercilious youngsters - that clueless cloned mentality that bleats: "But I don't understand why you have a phone like that…..like, you have a cool computer." (As they stare at a Nokia 3510, and a maxed out 11" MBA)….sharing space in the one leather briefcase….. Their understanding of the subtle laws governing our relationship with technology…….is sometimes a bit limited.

 

[Dark Void]

Right now you can get a refurbished 64GB iPod Touch 5th gen for $239.00 directly from Apple. It doesn't get any better than that off-contract for an iPhone of the same spec. Slap on some AppleCare and it's still a great deal.

Precisely. Much better than a $600+ iPhone if you don't care for cellular. People can argue hardware and such but the iPod Touch is more than adequate for media playback and browsing the web via WiFi. There is literally no solid reasoning to purchase an iPhone over an iPod Touch if all you want is a local storage media device.

 

[Dark Void]

Oh c'mon, when was buying any Apple product a wise financial decision ? But if one is willing to drop $2500 on a dedicated audiophile player, don't tell me that spending $900 on an iPhone 6 is unwise. smh.

I don't know what to say to this at all. It's downright ridiculous that you would defend someone paying much more for a device and not fully utilizing its most marketed feature over buying something more sensible.

With your logic, why not just get two 32 GB iPhones instead of one 64 GB one while we're spending money like cavemen. Airplane mode both of them and tape them together as one portable device. Money isn't an issue, right?