iPod Why is the iPod dying?

[kunai]

You don't need lossless audio to make an emotional connection to a song. Why are you listening to music if you're not getting emotionally involved?

No, you're right, I don't. But with lossless audio, and the proper equipment, you can connect so much more deeply with the artist. Every chord and dissonant tone comes out in full in a jazz song. Beautiful Oscar Peterson piano trills with decrescendo and a ritardando come out so much more powerfully. That last long vibrato note of Wynton's trumpet held out over Dan Nimmer's shimmering last piano chord impacts you like a nuclear shockwave. The twang of Ray Brown's bass is sharp and breathtaking.

I can feel the pain in Billie Holiday's voice. Johnny Hartman's baritone voice juxtaposed with John Coltrane's fantastic saxophone work puts me completely on another plane of consciousness.

BB King's great blues licks come out in full force. I can hear every improvised note and every blues scale that is plucked on that guitar. The nice "thwack" of a bass guitar on a Pink Floyd track is tight and crisp.

So, no I don't need lossless... just like you don't even need music.

If you've never listened to lossless audio with a decent set of cans, you won't care. Get a decent soundcard, a pair of Grado SR80i headphones, rip any jazz, blues, or rock album from a CD to FLAC, and listen.

You will never go back to those crappy iPod earbuds (or EarPods, as they're now called) again.

 

[coolguy4747]

No, you're right, I don't. But with lossless audio, and the proper equipment, you can connect so much more deeply with the artist. Every chord and dissonant tone comes out in full in a jazz song. Beautiful Oscar Peterson piano trills with decrescendo and a ritardando come out so much more powerfully. That last long vibrato note of Wynton's trumpet held out over Dan Nimmer's shimmering last piano chord impacts you like a nuclear shockwave. The twang of Ray Brown's bass is sharp and breathtaking.

I can feel the pain in Billie Holiday's voice. Johnny Hartman's baritone voice juxtaposed with John Coltrane's fantastic saxophone work puts me completely on another plane of consciousness.

BB King's great blues licks come out in full force. I can hear every improvised note and every blues scale that is plucked on that guitar. The nice "thwack" of a bass guitar on a Pink Floyd track is tight and crisp.

So, no I don't need lossless... just like you don't even need music.

If you've never listened to lossless audio with a decent set of cans, you won't care. Get a decent soundcard, a pair of Grado SR80i headphones, rip any jazz, blues, or rock album from a CD to FLAC, and listen.

You will never go back to those crappy iPod earbuds (or EarPods, as they're now called) again.

True. But since I have a ton of lossless audio and the ability to take a sizable portion of it with me, why not get my emotions involved with the highest fidelity my system can achieve?

I don't disagree with you, and that's fine. A lot of audiophiles talk about non-audiophiles like they are stupid, ignorant swine who simply don't know better and lack the common sense to listen to music the "right" way. (I'm not saying you said this, I've just seen it a lot.) Not everybody listens to jazz and blues, and the same things that are important to jazz and/or blues are not always important to other kinds of music or to all kinds of people. Sometimes lyrics and melody are enough, and even if they're not for one person, it doesn't mean that anyone else is doing it worse or incorrectly. Higher fidelity does not increase emotionality for everyone, nor should it. Where would the fun in life be if everyone experienced things the same way?

 

[kunai]

I don't disagree with you, and that's fine. A lot of audiophiles talk about non-audiophiles like they are stupid, ignorant swine who simply don't know better and lack the common sense to listen to music the "right" way. (I'm not saying you said this, I've just seen it a lot.) Not everybody listens to jazz and blues, and the same things that are important to jazz and/or blues are not always important to other kinds of music or to all kinds of people. Sometimes lyrics and melody are enough, and even if they're not for one person, it doesn't mean that anyone else is doing it worse or incorrectly. Higher fidelity does not increase emotionality for everyone, nor should it. Where would the fun in life be if everyone experienced things the same way?

The thing is, audiophiles want higher-quality audio to be more ubiquitous because right now, the roadmap for high-quality audio will end in about a decade. No more CDs and no more portable music players. If more people bought CDs and more people bought iPods, we'd have a reason to keep them alive and we'd be able to justify high-quality sound's existence. Right now, we're unable to. That's the conundrum.

And there's a lot of proof that for many, melody and lyrics isn't enough. The rock resurgence proves this; harmonization is a large part of music, and pop noise doesn't usually give much harmonization. I'm reaching the point of musical esoterica here, but there's 4 different styles of any chord played in a single key. There's the major, and the minor (you're probably familiar with these). But in more complicated music, like classic rock and blues, there's three more: the suspended, augmented, and diminished. In addition, a normal major or minor scale is boosted by blues and pentatonic scales.

Generally, pop music doesn't go beyond the major/minor and P4 and P5 intervals. Chord progressions are also limited; usually only 4 chords are used for the refrain and 3 chords for the chorus. Some, like "Call Me Maybe" use even fewer. This inhibits the emotional response you can get from the musical aspect of the music.

Now, if we look at some wildly popular rock music, we can see much, much more advanced musical theory; the Beatles extensively used modality in their music; and emphasized the dissonant aspect juxtaposed with the consonant in some places (like in "Taxman" and "Eleanor Rigby").

It's the reason why the Beatles have a signature sound that is like no other: they knew music theory and knew it well.

That's why the target demographic for pop almost always centers on teenagers. I don't think I can find anybody that actually says they enjoy pop music. Almost everyone I know listens to it only when there's nothing else to listen to. So, apparently, just a melody and lyrics are not enough for most people.

 

[copykris]

You've summed up in words exactly what I've been trying to say but have never been able to.

People hate quality. They don't care. They'd rather use Instagram with its crap 600x600 half-megapixel pseudo-photography pukey filter ***** than learn to shoot with a decent full-frame (or if they're ambitious, medium-format) single-lens reflex.

It doesn't even have to be an SLR. Just getting a freaking interchangeable-lens camera like the Nikon One is five thousand times better, for god's sake. Filters look cheesy, tacky, and awful.

The same with audio. Why have Beats become so popular? Advertising.

Why have reputable audio brands like Sennheiser, Denon, AKG, Audio-Technica, Sony, Etymotic, Shure, and Klipsch gone away from the limelight? Because people don't care about quality, they care about looking cool and fitting in. Sigh... That's why CDs aren't produced in huge batches anymore; only people who want to play music in their car without having to futz around with their phone, and die-hard audiophiles buy CDs.

Shame that they'll be gone in a decade or so, considering that they're still the best quality audio source. Vinyl is nice to listen to but is too colored and hiss remains on most tracks. MP3s are crap. CDs are great, Audio DVDs were even better, but unfortunately got killed because of the same reason: convenience v. quality.

Why do people vote for the same crappy democratic or republican candidates every year instead of researching about third-parties for the future of our country? It's because staying within the party you were raised in is convenient, but who gives a crap about the future of our country! Hah!

Why do people buy the same crappy, repetitive, awful, ear-grinding horrible tacky, cheesy pop music instead of expanding their horizons and experimenting with different music genres like rock, blues, jazz, hell, even classical? Convenience v. quality. Pop is easy to listen to. Other genres are harder. Rock, blues, and jazz have a lot in common: they're spontaneous, improvisatory, and much of the music is based off of formal theory, not 3 chords played over and over with a continuous "thumpin'" bass track in the background (which isn't even a real bass; it's just sloppy synth boosted fake bass).

You know, if you are somebody who is rational, not swayed by emotion, and have the necessary educational credentials to prove that you know more than most others, sometimes you just have to stop, think, and realize just how stupid the masses are.

Too stupid.

/rant

agreed except for the part where you claim that vinyl sounds inferior when compared to a cd

anyway, generally, people are incredibly stupid man, i do hear you on that

 

[Fatboy71]

With the vast growth in people purchasing iPhones or other smartphones which have music players, the iPod is not as popular due to this. If you own an iPhone, you essentially have an iPod Touch in terms of the music player, so there’s no need in purchasing an iPod and carrying two devices around.

For people who do not need or want an iPhone or other smartphone, but still want a music player, then there is the iPod (or other MP3 players).

 

[nitromac]

The iPod (and mp3 players in general) is dying because smartphones are absorbing that market sector. When you have constant internet connectivity and fairly large amounts of flash storage in your phone, you don't really "need" an iPod unless your music library is huge. A phone will work fine as a music player for a large majority of people. They just want to hear their music, be able to purchase/listen to songs on the go, and if you can do that with your phone, why bother owning a separate device?

Well, in some cases the storage on the phone isn't enough. That was my case. I had an old Creative Zen Vision:M 30GB mp3 player (the iPod Video rival in its day) that was starting to act up -- touchpad was unresponsive, headphone jack iffy -- it was ~5 years old. So I got myself an iPod Classic in 2012 as a replacement (already owned an iPhone 4S then). The 16GB on my phone wasn't enough to hold my entire music library (~40gb) along with photos, videos, apps, etc.

Second, I have a soft spot for mp3 players and older technology. I don't want CDs to go away. I don't like "digitally" owning music. I much prefer having a high quality, physical copy accompanied with physical artwork and packaging. It's a complement to the music itself. Purchasing songs digitally just takes away that whole experience for me. I also don't want to exclusively store everything "in the cloud" because I don't have constant LTE coverage everywhere I go.

I don't mind having a second device dedicated to music. I leave it in the car most of the time for driving. If I want music in lecture or something I'll just load a few songs on my phone quickly. The $250 I paid has already paid off since I would have had to purchase a 64GB 4S and a 64GB 5S instead.

 

[swingerofbirch]

Just call an iPad the iPod slate and look at its marketshare soar.

 

[KUguardgrl13]

As others have said, smartphones are killing MP3 players in general.

Personally I got into Apple because of the iPod. I got a first gen iPod Shuffle way back in 2005. I still have an 80gb iPod Classic lying around for when I travel or want to listen to music that isn't on my iPhone. I don't like the idea of paying for iTunes Match when I already paid for the songs and devices. It would probably also burn through my 6gb of data/month pretty fast.

 

[Pakaku]

There are financial reasons why Apple is more interested in pushing phones and tablets than in classic iPods. As you have demonstrated, you hang on to your iPod much, much longer than the typical smartphone or tablet user, who buys new hardware every few years. They also buy apps, for which Apple receives a 30% cut on every purchase. And they view ads, which nets Apple even more revenue.

I'd agree and disagree... back then, there were most likely people who bought newer iPods more regularly, if not on every gen release. Likewise, there are some people (like me) who will try to use their old iPhone for as long as the hardware will last.

I'm pretty sure that Apple's financial reason for focusing more on iPhones is simply because they are their bigger profit maker at the moment.

 

[technano11]

Personally I'm an iPod collector. And I had 3 iPod nanos which required battery replacement. I really like the design, aesthetic aspect of Apple iPods but I hate the repair aspect of every iPod Nanos. Why does apple have to make it so difficult for consumers to repair their devices?!

It's all about profit making. When it's broken buy another one. This sucks.

 

[apple_iBoy]

You've summed up in words exactly what I've been trying to say but have never been able to.

People hate quality. They don't care. They'd rather use Instagram with its crap 600x600 half-megapixel pseudo-photography pukey filter ***** than learn to shoot with a decent full-frame (or if they're ambitious, medium-format) single-lens reflex.

It doesn't even have to be an SLR. Just getting a freaking interchangeable-lens camera like the Nikon One is five thousand times better, for god's sake. Filters look cheesy, tacky, and awful.
/rant

For the past few years, I've seen many many folks with SLR cameras who don't seem to know the first thing about how to use one. To them, it seems to be a "better" (because it was more expensive) point-and-shoot, and they use it accordingly.

The other day I was at an outdoor light show at night— lights projected onto fountains, which were probably 500 yards away. I witnessed the woman next to me taking hundreds (and I do mean hundreds) of shots with an SLR, which she was holding completely wrong and which had the flash activated. So she was getting hundreds of shots of the flash-illuminated railing that was 5 feet in front of us. I tried to be helpful by suggesting the pictures would turn out better with the flash off and the camera resting on a stable surface like the railing (I didn't even get into shutter and F-stop settings). She looked at me like I had 10 heads.

Meanwhile, she probably had to upgrade her computer storage at home to accommodate the terabytes of worthless photos she was taking.

I'm not convinced everyone needs an SLR. Some would be better served by just using their camera phone and calling it a day.

 

[apple_iBoy]

Since my post above is sort of off the iPod topic, I also wanted to say how much I miss the old-school iPod nanos. I still have 4th and a 5th generation models, which I thought were fantastic. Unfortunately, they're sadly underused right now.

The touch screen nanos have never really appealed to me, and the latest one just doesn't excite me at all. I think it's the plastic frame around the screen that makes it look like a lower-end product. I'm sure it's a nice device, but for my money it doesn't hold a candle to the beautiful 5th gen models.

I used to have one attached to the USB port in my car, and one was for running. Now with iTunes Match and iTunes radio, I stream music with my iPhone 5S in the car. I have an old iPhone 4 that I usually use for running now.

The best use I still get from the iPods is to load them up with music and audiobooks and use them when I'm on really long flights (my partner just took one of them yesterday on a flight to India).

 

[kunai]

For the past few years, I've seen many many folks with SLR cameras who don't seem to know the first thing about how to use one. To them, it seems to be a "better" (because it was more expensive) point-and-shoot, and they use it accordingly.

The other day I was at an outdoor light show at night— lights projected onto fountains, which were probably 500 yards away. I witnessed the woman next to me taking hundreds (and I do mean hundreds) of shots with an SLR, which she was holding completely wrong and which had the flash activated. So she was getting hundreds of shots of the flash-illuminated railing that was 5 feet in front of us. I tried to be helpful by suggesting the pictures would turn out better with the flash off and the camera resting on a stable surface like the railing (I didn't even get into shutter and F-stop settings). She looked at me like I had 10 heads.

Meanwhile, she probably had to upgrade her computer storage at home to accommodate the terabytes of worthless photos she was taking.

I'm not convinced everyone needs an SLR. Some would be better served by just using their camera phone and calling it a day.

That's what I was saying. They don't care about quality, so they'll sure as hell BUY an SLR -- but they won't care about learning how to use it. Since the aperture is wider, photos tend to have a higher DOF, so the blurred background looks "nicer" -- that's all they care about.

Sad, sad world we live in. Expensive cameras != knowing how to take a good photo.

----------

Since my post above is sort of off the iPod topic, I also wanted to say how much I miss the old-school iPod nanos. I still have 4th and a 5th generation models, which I thought were fantastic. Unfortunately, they're sadly underused right now.

The touch screen nanos have never really appealed to me, and the latest one just doesn't excite me at all. I think it's the plastic frame around the screen that makes it look like a lower-end product. I'm sure it's a nice device, but for my money it doesn't hold a candle to the beautiful 5th gen models.

I used to have one attached to the USB port in my car, and one was for running. Now with iTunes Match and iTunes radio, I stream music with my iPhone 5S in the car. I have an old iPhone 4 that I usually use for running now.

The best use I still get from the iPods is to load them up with music and audiobooks and use them when I'm on really long flights (my partner just took one of them yesterday on a flight to India).

Call me crazy, but I liked the 3rd gen the best. Its proportions just seemed perfect. It was essentially a smaller Classic. Beautiful device; although that scratch-prone back drove me to pieces.

I still own one, unopened, in a box. Silver. And another, Product Red model.

I'll keep them for a long, long time.

 

[7enderbender]

You don't need lossless audio to make an emotional connection to a song. Why are you listening to music if you're not getting emotionally involved?

Well, maybe because there are people who have a different approach to these things. People are different and think, feel and hear differently.

Yes, a good song from a bad car stereo with a half-dead cassette tape back in the days can include some emotional connection. Often there is more involved than just the music. That's all fine.

But as a musician and somebody who probably hears and feels differently because of it (studies show that musicians often process music in other parts of the brain) I usually want more than that. I don't think in terms of "songs" and other $1.29 particles. So I usually need a bit more space and higher quality audio gear.

And no, lossless is not always necessary. But I'm certainly among those who hears and "feels" the difference between lower sample rates and the better quality that you can store on the classic even with large music collections. Probably irrelevant for most people. But it would be nice if there was an audiophile version available with better headphone amps and all. I'd pay extra for it.

 

[ftaok]

snip

People hate quality. They don't care. They'd rather use Instagram with its crap 600x600 half-megapixel pseudo-photography pukey filter ***** than learn to shoot with a decent full-frame (or if they're ambitious, medium-format) single-lens reflex.

snip

I totally hear you, but this filters through all aspects of 1st World life.

Most people don't care about quality. Good enough is good enough, as long as it's affordable.

For you, it's about photography, audio, electronics. For others, it's about wine and cheese. And others, it's about cars.

The wine/cheese guy might get all pissy that White Zinfindel is the most popular wine and Cheez-Whiz sells by the tub full.

The car guy might be upset that Mercedes is outsold by Ford 100-to-1.

Point is that everyone has certain things they care about that most people couldn't give two craps about.

We tech lovers just have to deal with the fact that most people don't care about the stuff that we love.

 

[Titus]

I've been buying iPods since the original classic. I love my nano and use it when I exercise. I listen to books and songs. It's small and convenient. I have another in my office docked to a Bose system.

 

[Frisco]

I've been buying iPods since the original classic. I love my nano and use it when I exercise. I listen to books and songs. It's small and convenient. I have another in my office docked to a Bose system.

It is people like you that keep Apple making iPods for decades to come.

Hey my sister still uses a Sony Walkman--so there is still money to be made.

 

[coolguy4747]

So, apparently, just a melody and lyrics are not enough for most people.

Is that why most people are audiophiles?

I'm a musician too, albeit a mediocre one. I guess my terminology wasn't very accurate. What I really meant by "melody and lyrics" was "people singing" (let's not get into what does and does not constitute singing, I know there are people out there with very loud opinions on the matter). I'm not saying more complex music isn't better, I'm just saying most people don't care, and that's not "bad." Bad for you, maybe, but that has nothing to do with anyone else.

 

[mrichmon]

than learn to shoot with a decent full-frame (or if they're ambitious, medium-format) single-lens reflex.

It doesn't even have to be an SLR. Just getting a freaking interchangeable-lens camera like the Nikon One is five thousand times better, for god's sake.

The best camera is the one you have with you.

 

[kunai]

The best camera is the one you have with you.

Yes, but they can't even take decent pictures with the camera they own. Owning a better camera would teach them lighting, composition, staging, and how it affects the aesthetic considerations of a photo. Unfortunately there are the people who don't even care about learning a dSLR's controls, and treat it like a glorified P&S (too many of these folks out there). Still, it's better than taking crappy shots with an iPhone camera.

 

[mrichmon]

Yes, but they can't even take decent pictures with the camera they own. Owning a better camera would teach them lighting, composition, staging, and how it affects the aesthetic considerations of a photo. Unfortunately there are the people who don't even care about learning a dSLR's controls, and treat it like a glorified P&S (too many of these folks out there). Still, it's better than taking crappy shots with an iPhone camera.

Maybe better for you. Personally, I choose not to judge others on where they find their enjoyment. Super-good equipment can turn out just as many crappy shots as low-end equipment.

Owning a better camera will not teach anyone anything. The only way people will learn about lighting, composition, etc, is if they are interested. You can learn about all that photo theory with a fully manual film camera. In fact, you can learn about those things with a pinhole camera or a plastic lensed Holga.

 

[Superluigi6]

If Apple wanted to update the iPods, they would of already done it.

What else could they do anyways? Think about it:

iPod touch They are going to release the iWatch, and will probably be VERY similar to the iPod touch. But they could still update it, with the latest processor and a larger screen, etc.

iPod nano They could add Siri support built in (ex. Siri, play Bob Dylan) and iTunes Radio, but thats what I think.

iPod Shuffle Apple could discontinue this product anytime they feel like it.

iPod classic They still make them?!

 

[MacRazySwe]

For me, the death of the iPod arose as soon as I got my first iPhone and a Spotify-account. Honestly, the iPod was amazing at the time - but as of today, I have all the worlds music available at the end of my fingertips. Let's just say, I wouldn't wanna go back.

Booting your computer, opening iTunes, finding that song, purchasing it and downloading it, connecting your iPod, syncing your iPod et.c. et.c., was just an unnecessary hassle.

In my opinion, Convenience > Quality (to some extent)

Trust me, if Spotify's high-quality streams are good enough for my father and his $10k audio-setup, they are definitely good enough for me and my Koss PortaPro's. Oh, and with Offline-playlists, files are available anywhere I go. That said, I miss the iPod-era from time to time.

 

[Solomani]

I love my iPod Touch 5th gen. It does what I bought it for…. plays music every day. It's either docked to a Bose speaker system, or it's playing music in my car (via Bluetooth connection).

And even better…. I can use the iPod Touch any time, knowing that I don't pay monthly payments to Verizon or AT&T for using it.

A simple device. It works beautifully for its intended use. Music.

----------

Booting your computer, opening iTunes, finding that song, purchasing it and downloading it, connecting your iPod, syncing your iPod et.c. et.c., was just an unnecessary hassle.

Uhh, then you don't know about the iPod Touches. The Touch has all the same WiFi and Bluetooth connections as the iPhone. We don't have to use cables to synch anything (except for the first time), we have the option to use Cloud synching. We also use Wifi for iOS updates. We download our iTunes songs wirelessly from The Cloud just like an iPhone.

 

[musika]

Still excellent.