With so many idiots now ear-tuned to data reduction (thanks to Apple iTunes store and general availability of on-line music) consumers have now got so used to mediocre sound reproduction it matters little to the vast majority that there no longer exists an iPod capable of AIFF/Lossless playback.
So, what's to stop Apple using SSD's with larger capacity? They wouldn't need to re-engineer the Classic, just replace the HDD with an 1.8" "ZIF" SSD of 256GB. As I did with my three Classics a year ago. They are much, much faster at access and the battery lasts months before requiring a recharge.
The truth. Apple have ditched quality for quantity in the music dept.
If not for Apple creating the iTunes Music Store and inventing the lossy MP3 format we never would have had CDs, tapes, 8-tracks. FM radio, and TV/Cable music channels that were using mediocre sound reproduction¡
"Video killed the radio star" - and now streaming has killed the iPod Classic. I am an old guy in the UK who has been collecting CD's and albums on just about every kind of media on and off since the fifties. I own a few thousand albums totalling some 70,000 tracks. Yet my kids and grandkids hardly ever buy an album or track to own. They stream everything and if they want something a little off centre then they can usually find it on 'You Tub'e. I doubt that Mr Cook is in the slightest bit bothered about whether he can source parts - what would he want to do so for? Fewer tracks and albums are sold and stored to be carried around - hence the decline of iTunes and the impending addition of beats in its new structure. I have two iPod Classics, an iPad, an iPhone, a MBP and an iMac. They each have a section of music on them and to be fair, the iPhone with its 64gb is what I use most for music these days as it is always with me and rarely need to update the musical content. If Apple change their collective mind about building a bigger iPod I will buy one - but there is enough alternative mobile technology around for me to cope if they do not.
With so many idiots now ear-tuned to data reduction (thanks to Apple iTunes store and general availability of on-line music) consumers have now got so used to mediocre sound reproduction it matters little to the vast majority that there no longer exists an iPod capable of AIFF/Lossless playback.
So, what's to stop Apple using SSD's with larger capacity? They wouldn't need to re-engineer the Classic, just replace the HDD with an 1.8" "ZIF" SSD of 256GB. As I did with my three Classics a year ago. They are much, much faster at access and the battery lasts months before requiring a recharge.
The truth. Apple have ditched quality for quantity in the music dept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If not for Apple creating the iTunes Music Store and inventing the lossy MP3 format we never would have had CDs, tapes, 8-tracks. FM radio, and TV/Cable music channels that were using mediocre sound reproduction¡
Shame, you offer examples of technological limitation. Apple has no such excuse. Everyone who purchases an iTunes track/album should be allowed to download it in AIFF/WAV/Apple Lossless (or even FLAC) at higher sample rates than currently offered should they so wish. Wilfully restricting the sample rate available via contemporaneous technology is disingenuous. The human ear is not entirely fooled by Red Book standard. SACD was preferrable for those with the ability to discern the differences. Here, again, commercial interests took precedence over quality and the public were expected to pay significantly more for a binary source that took no more money to create than Red Book. All the music on my iPods has been digitised from analogue at 24-bit/96kHz and down sampled to the maximum iTunes and the iPod will allow you to replay (yet another Apple imposed restriction) as a consumer. Sure, 90% of music output is of such a low standard due to engineering ineptitude and recording artist indifference that data reduction has little impact on the music offered up for consumption. There are, however, artists, engineers and end-users who care enormously about fidelity. To them Apple cocks a snook while lookers on obsequiously scuttle about looking for ways to justify the unjustifiable.
Better for Cook to have said the iPod Classic market is too small and Apple really doesn't give a damn for those who depended on it for audio quality.
Instead, Cook's excuse (or blatant lie?) for discontinuing the iPod was (and is) deceitful.
Oh, and despite having over 150,000 tracks myself, not a one was purchased on iTunes. They have all come from CD's and LP's every one of which I purchased and ripped/encoded.
I'd hazard a guess you'd regard them as stolen because I haven't paid Apple a penny for a single data-reduced audio file in my iTunes libraries.
You can add libel to your deluge of posts. Have you nothing better to do?
Okay. Enjoy your delusions. I’ll wait for you to explain what “let me pay for it” could possibly mean other than the music is currently stolen. You won’t reply, but whatever. If you’d taken any time whatsoever to read and comprehend what was written, you wouldn’t have posted such nonsense.
Aren't all the iPods dead? Sure, they may still be selling them, but innovation stalled on the iPod line years ago. Which is too bad, because doing any kind of exercise with a Phablet in one's pocket is lame. I would pay good money for a small lightweight Nano with more storage and a few enhancements (fix the mess that is iTunes, bring back the lock button, let me start my audiobook where I left off, etc.)
I've been following this for a while. There are plenty of people (especially musicians) who have large music libraries. I have LPs that I've digitized myself, since they are out of print and not available on iTunes or CD. I have long pieces of music - symphonies, piano sonatas, etc. at high resolution (CD quality). I believe they could have made an SD version of the "classic". - But they want people to pay for subscriptions to streaming low-fi disposable pop music.
Okay. Enjoy your delusions. I’ll wait for you to explain what “let me pay for it” could possibly mean other than the music is currently stolen. You won’t reply, but whatever. If you’d taken any time whatsoever to read and comprehend what was written, you wouldn’t have posted such nonsense.
He was referring to the fact Apple does not support large iTunes libraries. His library exceeds the permissible number of tracks iTunes Match will tolerate. People really into music are given short shrift by Apple.
Shame, you offer examples of technological limitation. Apple has no such excuse.
1) Everything has technical limitations. EVERYTHING!
2) Apple's limitations had to do bandwidth, storage capacity, and contractual obligations. You really think Apple could have said in 2001 they want ALAC copies from Masters with 50MB per track downloads? Get real.
3) There is no reason you can't use records to record your audio to ALAC to use on your iPhone which would give you the best possible.
1) The 160GB only holds 149GB minus the file system and OS, so no iDevice holds 160GB locally. And you would know that if you decided to think before posting.
2) Now, do you own 120 GB+ of music, which would make it more than what a 128GB iPhone hold? Of course you don't, which is why this is just another trollish comment by you.
How do you listen to your music if not by using an Apple device? Pono?
I use a number of sources. My preferred is analogue (Pink Triangle Anniversary turntable with Technics u205 cartridge). I also have access to master tapes courtesy of a friend in the record business which I borrow (if 2nd Gen master) or he encodes from (if master). I'm not sure Pono is available yet, but I will see what it has to offer.
Limitations: Certainly, one has to make compromises if the technology is limiting. In the case of iTunes, however, this is not the case. There is/was nothing stopping Apple from working with the record industry to release 24Bit/192kHz rereleases of Classic albums. In fact, they were in a unique position to exploit this option. My friend who reissues old classics can get master tapes from the major record companies and remaster them for release on vinyl. If he can do it, Apple can. But it is a question of will and commitment. No one senior at Apple has ever cared for music. It is similar with gaming. When Jobs stuck the head back on Apple he forgot to turn it the right way round. So, when checking the bulging trouser pockets, it has a tendency to look down at its arse too often. The result is the Mac/Apple ensemble has ceased to be a master, more a jack.
I use a number of sources. My preferred is analogue (Pink Triangle Anniversary turntable with Technics u205 cartridge). I also have access to master tapes courtesy of a friend in the record business which I borrow (if 2nd Gen master) or he encodes from (if master). I'm not sure Pono is available yet, but I will see what it has to offer.
So you're upset with Apple for not offering a portable turnable or being a "friend" that let's you borrow master tapes? :???:
There is/was nothing stopping Apple from working with the record industry to release 24Bit/192kHz rereleases of Classic albums.
1) HOW ABOUT THE RECORD COMPANY! Apple doesn't own the content but they have excellent PMPs that support ALAC so there is nothing preventing you from adding your illegally(?) obtained master tapes as ALAC.
2) "Articles last month revealed that musician Neil Young and Apple's Steve Jobs discussed offering digital music downloads of 'uncompromised studio quality'. Much of the press and user commentary was particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of uncompressed 24 bit 192kHz downloads. 24/192 featured prominently in my own conversations with Mr. Young's group several months ago."
So you're upset with Apple for not offering a portable turnable or being a "friend" that let's you borrow master tapes?
1) HOW ABOUT THE RECORD COMPANY! Apple doesn't own the content but they have excellent PMPs that support ALAC so there is nothing preventing you from adding your illegally(?) obtained master tapes as ALAC.
2) "Articles last month revealed that musician Neil Young and Apple's Steve Jobs discussed offering digital music downloads of 'uncompromised studio quality'. Much of the press and user commentary was particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of uncompressed 24 bit 192kHz downloads. 24/192 featured prominently in my own conversations with Mr. Young's group several months ago."
No, not for not producing a turntable, but for not allowing greater choice of download bit rates, increasingly poor quality, cheap sound/audio solutions and junking the only iPod that had decent storage space at a reasonable price. And for lying about the reason they're pulling iPod Classic. Respect for your customers is a virtue.
I do not "illegally" acquire encoded copies of master tapes as I pay his company on a per recording basis (seems some people on AI like to liberally denigrate Apple users who happen to sometimes criticise Apple's corporate persona). I do own master tapes, however, as many record companies threw them after digitally encoding. I also respect Apple's EULA, that is why I don't run OS X on my generic PC that is more than capable. Pity they don't respect their customers or treat them with such integrity.
For me a music player source is like a phone. That is why I don't buy and use smartphones. I'd rather have one device that does one thing excellently than a piece of tech that does multiple things "acceptably". As we see, acceptable means the lowest common denominator. That is why Windows and Android do so well.
[quote name="Bloodshotrollin'red" url="/t/183083/cook-blames-death-of-ipod-classic-on-parts-availability-no-replacement-planned/80#post_2629934"]No, not for not producing a turntable, but for not allowing greater choice of download bit rates, increasingly poor quality, cheap sound/audio solutions and junking the only iPod that had decent storage space at a reasonable price.[/QUOTE]
You have any reasonable choice you want because their devices are not looked to only use iTS content.
[QUOTE]And for lying about the reason they're pulling iPod Classic.[/QUOTE]
What lie? It's no longer effective to produce the necessary components nor worth it to redesign the iPod Classic for such a pathetically small market. What you're asking for is the iPod Classic to live on as a device that would likely cost more than a 128GB iPhone because the market is ridiculously small.
Do you really believe the iPod Classic that hasn't been altered in many years has been holding up the dwindling iPod market? I don't. In fact, I don't expect there to be any noticeable change in the iPod numbers YoY that will make any reasonable person say, "This wouldn't have happened if they didn't kill the iPod Classic."
[QUOTE]I do not "illegally" acquire encoded copies of master tapes as I pay his company on a per recording basis (seems some people on AI like to liberally denigrate Apple users who happen to sometimes criticise Apple's corporate persona).[/QUOTE]
1) Did you not see my question mark? <= It looks like that.
2) Paying someone doesn't mean the transaction was legal.
[QUOTE]I also respect Apple's EULA[/QUOTE]
Seriously? :roll eyes:
[QUOTE]that is why I don't run OS X on my generic PC that is more than capable.[/QUOTE]
I encourage you to run a Hackintosh and then let us know how much better that is over an actual Mac.
[QUOTE]Pity they don't respect their customers or treat them with such integrity.[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah, it's all Apple's fault for doing what they can to offer a service you don't have to use. I bet you think Apple would like to still keep their music DRM'd.
[QUOTE]For me a music player source is like a phone. That is why I don't buy and use smartphones. I'd rather have one device that does one thing excellently than a piece of tech that does multiple things "acceptably". As we see, acceptable means the lowest common denominator. That is why Windows and Android do so wel[/QUOTE]
Noted. I'll file that away with I don't want move oven attached to my stove, my fridge attached to my freezer, or my wireless orouter to also be a switch.
Seriously though, this all screams elitism without substance. I would love to take a handful of your legally purchased masters of various artists and then encode them at some other inferior bit rate to see if you and your ilk can actually determine which is which when listening through the iPod Classic with your choice of headphones. Every independent test I've seen over the years say it's simply not likely with human ears.
Comments
If not for Apple creating the iTunes Music Store and inventing the lossy MP3 format we never would have had CDs, tapes, 8-tracks. FM radio, and TV/Cable music channels that were using mediocre sound reproduction¡
Epic fail.
They do. It's called the iPhone.
Instead of $3 Billion spent on crappy headphones you could have shown some respect and innovation for Apple's signature music product Tim.
Epic fail.
They have something called the iPod nano, the iPod shuffle, the iPod touch, the iPhone, and the iPad- all of which can play music.
"Video killed the radio star" - and now streaming has killed the iPod Classic. I am an old guy in the UK who has been collecting CD's and albums on just about every kind of media on and off since the fifties. I own a few thousand albums totalling some 70,000 tracks. Yet my kids and grandkids hardly ever buy an album or track to own. They stream everything and if they want something a little off centre then they can usually find it on 'You Tub'e. I doubt that Mr Cook is in the slightest bit bothered about whether he can source parts - what would he want to do so for? Fewer tracks and albums are sold and stored to be carried around - hence the decline of iTunes and the impending addition of beats in its new structure. I have two iPod Classics, an iPad, an iPhone, a MBP and an iMac. They each have a section of music on them and to be fair, the iPhone with its 64gb is what I use most for music these days as it is always with me and rarely need to update the musical content. If Apple change their collective mind about building a bigger iPod I will buy one - but there is enough alternative mobile technology around for me to cope if they do not.
Can it hold 160GBs of music? :rolleyes:
Do any of them hold 160 GBs of music? :rolleyes:
With so many idiots now ear-tuned to data reduction (thanks to Apple iTunes store and general availability of on-line music) consumers have now got so used to mediocre sound reproduction it matters little to the vast majority that there no longer exists an iPod capable of AIFF/Lossless playback.
So, what's to stop Apple using SSD's with larger capacity? They wouldn't need to re-engineer the Classic, just replace the HDD with an 1.8" "ZIF" SSD of 256GB. As I did with my three Classics a year ago. They are much, much faster at access and the battery lasts months before requiring a recharge.
The truth. Apple have ditched quality for quantity in the music dept.
If not for Apple creating the iTunes Music Store and inventing the lossy MP3 format we never would have had CDs, tapes, 8-tracks. FM radio, and TV/Cable music channels that were using mediocre sound reproduction¡
Shame, you offer examples of technological limitation. Apple has no such excuse. Everyone who purchases an iTunes track/album should be allowed to download it in AIFF/WAV/Apple Lossless (or even FLAC) at higher sample rates than currently offered should they so wish. Wilfully restricting the sample rate available via contemporaneous technology is disingenuous. The human ear is not entirely fooled by Red Book standard. SACD was preferrable for those with the ability to discern the differences. Here, again, commercial interests took precedence over quality and the public were expected to pay significantly more for a binary source that took no more money to create than Red Book. All the music on my iPods has been digitised from analogue at 24-bit/96kHz and down sampled to the maximum iTunes and the iPod will allow you to replay (yet another Apple imposed restriction) as a consumer. Sure, 90% of music output is of such a low standard due to engineering ineptitude and recording artist indifference that data reduction has little impact on the music offered up for consumption. There are, however, artists, engineers and end-users who care enormously about fidelity. To them Apple cocks a snook while lookers on obsequiously scuttle about looking for ways to justify the unjustifiable.
Better for Cook to have said the iPod Classic market is too small and Apple really doesn't give a damn for those who depended on it for audio quality.
Instead, Cook's excuse (or blatant lie?) for discontinuing the iPod was (and is) deceitful.
He stole the music.
You can add libel to your deluge of posts. Have you nothing better to do?
He stole the music.
Oh, and despite having over 150,000 tracks myself, not a one was purchased on iTunes. They have all come from CD's and LP's every one of which I purchased and ripped/encoded.
I'd hazard a guess you'd regard them as stolen because I haven't paid Apple a penny for a single data-reduced audio file in my iTunes libraries.
Okay. Enjoy your delusions. I’ll wait for you to explain what “let me pay for it” could possibly mean other than the music is currently stolen. You won’t reply, but whatever. If you’d taken any time whatsoever to read and comprehend what was written, you wouldn’t have posted such nonsense.
Aren't all the iPods dead? Sure, they may still be selling them, but innovation stalled on the iPod line years ago. Which is too bad, because doing any kind of exercise with a Phablet in one's pocket is lame. I would pay good money for a small lightweight Nano with more storage and a few enhancements (fix the mess that is iTunes, bring back the lock button, let me start my audiobook where I left off, etc.)
So, I've signed up to buy a pono
ponomusic.com
It's the player "for the rest of us".
Okay. Enjoy your delusions. I’ll wait for you to explain what “let me pay for it” could possibly mean other than the music is currently stolen. You won’t reply, but whatever. If you’d taken any time whatsoever to read and comprehend what was written, you wouldn’t have posted such nonsense.
He was referring to the fact Apple does not support large iTunes libraries. His library exceeds the permissible number of tracks iTunes Match will tolerate. People really into music are given short shrift by Apple.
1) Everything has technical limitations. EVERYTHING!
2) Apple's limitations had to do bandwidth, storage capacity, and contractual obligations. You really think Apple could have said in 2001 they want ALAC copies from Masters with 50MB per track downloads? Get real.
3) There is no reason you can't use records to record your audio to ALAC to use on your iPhone which would give you the best possible.
1) The 160GB only holds 149GB minus the file system and OS, so no iDevice holds 160GB locally. And you would know that if you decided to think before posting.
2) Now, do you own 120 GB+ of music, which would make it more than what a 128GB iPhone hold? Of course you don't, which is why this is just another trollish comment by you.
How do you listen to your music if not by using an Apple device? Pono?
How do you listen to your music if not by using an Apple device? Pono?
I use a number of sources. My preferred is analogue (Pink Triangle Anniversary turntable with Technics u205 cartridge). I also have access to master tapes courtesy of a friend in the record business which I borrow (if 2nd Gen master) or he encodes from (if master). I'm not sure Pono is available yet, but I will see what it has to offer.
Limitations: Certainly, one has to make compromises if the technology is limiting. In the case of iTunes, however, this is not the case. There is/was nothing stopping Apple from working with the record industry to release 24Bit/192kHz rereleases of Classic albums. In fact, they were in a unique position to exploit this option. My friend who reissues old classics can get master tapes from the major record companies and remaster them for release on vinyl. If he can do it, Apple can. But it is a question of will and commitment. No one senior at Apple has ever cared for music. It is similar with gaming. When Jobs stuck the head back on Apple he forgot to turn it the right way round. So, when checking the bulging trouser pockets, it has a tendency to look down at its arse too often. The result is the Mac/Apple ensemble has ceased to be a master, more a jack.
Look out! There's a lamppost up ahead.
So you're upset with Apple for not offering a portable turnable or being a "friend" that let's you borrow master tapes? :???:
1) HOW ABOUT THE RECORD COMPANY! Apple doesn't own the content but they have excellent PMPs that support ALAC so there is nothing preventing you from adding your illegally(?) obtained master tapes as ALAC.
2) "Articles last month revealed that musician Neil Young and Apple's Steve Jobs discussed offering digital music downloads of 'uncompromised studio quality'. Much of the press and user commentary was particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of uncompressed 24 bit 192kHz downloads. 24/192 featured prominently in my own conversations with Mr. Young's group several months ago."
So you're upset with Apple for not offering a portable turnable or being a "friend" that let's you borrow master tapes?
1) HOW ABOUT THE RECORD COMPANY! Apple doesn't own the content but they have excellent PMPs that support ALAC so there is nothing preventing you from adding your illegally(?) obtained master tapes as ALAC.
2) "Articles last month revealed that musician Neil Young and Apple's Steve Jobs discussed offering digital music downloads of 'uncompromised studio quality'. Much of the press and user commentary was particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of uncompressed 24 bit 192kHz downloads. 24/192 featured prominently in my own conversations with Mr. Young's group several months ago."
No, not for not producing a turntable, but for not allowing greater choice of download bit rates, increasingly poor quality, cheap sound/audio solutions and junking the only iPod that had decent storage space at a reasonable price. And for lying about the reason they're pulling iPod Classic. Respect for your customers is a virtue.
I do not "illegally" acquire encoded copies of master tapes as I pay his company on a per recording basis (seems some people on AI like to liberally denigrate Apple users who happen to sometimes criticise Apple's corporate persona). I do own master tapes, however, as many record companies threw them after digitally encoding. I also respect Apple's EULA, that is why I don't run OS X on my generic PC that is more than capable. Pity they don't respect their customers or treat them with such integrity.
For me a music player source is like a phone. That is why I don't buy and use smartphones. I'd rather have one device that does one thing excellently than a piece of tech that does multiple things "acceptably". As we see, acceptable means the lowest common denominator. That is why Windows and Android do so well.
You have any reasonable choice you want because their devices are not looked to only use iTS content.
[QUOTE]And for lying about the reason they're pulling iPod Classic.[/QUOTE]
What lie? It's no longer effective to produce the necessary components nor worth it to redesign the iPod Classic for such a pathetically small market. What you're asking for is the iPod Classic to live on as a device that would likely cost more than a 128GB iPhone because the market is ridiculously small.
Do you really believe the iPod Classic that hasn't been altered in many years has been holding up the dwindling iPod market? I don't. In fact, I don't expect there to be any noticeable change in the iPod numbers YoY that will make any reasonable person say, "This wouldn't have happened if they didn't kill the iPod Classic."
[QUOTE]I do not "illegally" acquire encoded copies of master tapes as I pay his company on a per recording basis (seems some people on AI like to liberally denigrate Apple users who happen to sometimes criticise Apple's corporate persona).[/QUOTE]
1) Did you not see my question mark? <= It looks like that.
2) Paying someone doesn't mean the transaction was legal.
[QUOTE]I also respect Apple's EULA[/QUOTE]
Seriously? :roll eyes:
[QUOTE]that is why I don't run OS X on my generic PC that is more than capable.[/QUOTE]
I encourage you to run a Hackintosh and then let us know how much better that is over an actual Mac.
[QUOTE]Pity they don't respect their customers or treat them with such integrity.[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah, it's all Apple's fault for doing what they can to offer a service you don't have to use. I bet you think Apple would like to still keep their music DRM'd.
[QUOTE]For me a music player source is like a phone. That is why I don't buy and use smartphones. I'd rather have one device that does one thing excellently than a piece of tech that does multiple things "acceptably". As we see, acceptable means the lowest common denominator. That is why Windows and Android do so wel[/QUOTE]
Noted. I'll file that away with I don't want move oven attached to my stove, my fridge attached to my freezer, or my wireless orouter to also be a switch.
Seriously though, this all screams elitism without substance. I would love to take a handful of your legally purchased masters of various artists and then encode them at some other inferior bit rate to see if you and your ilk can actually determine which is which when listening through the iPod Classic with your choice of headphones. Every independent test I've seen over the years say it's simply not likely with human ears.