Nano has always outsold the more expensive iPods, since Nano was introduced. And Mini before that.
And basing an article on the musings of an analyst that doesn't know the products he's talking about ("iPhone can do all an iPod can do..." ah, except hold 16 GB of content) only makes it worse.
I like seeing some numbers, but I could've written this story without leaving my office.
First, the NEW Nano is nice. The old one was a shuffle with a screen. The new one does a lot, and is small, and makes you wonder why ever buy a shuffle. So the old was was hurt by the Shuffle and the new one will not be. So it's sales will be up.
That being said....
Second, the Touch is a BIG hit if it sells half the number of Nano's being sold.
I don't need anyone hanging around a Mall checking to see if Nano sales are up and ahead of Touch sales. The Touch is a HUGE success, and so the Nano is doing what is supposed to do. (fight back against the cheaper Shuffle)
Of and one more thing...... anyone out there surprised the Macbook is selling best?
That's only been a trend for .... as long as we can remember?
How about an article about something of interest? You know.... something we didn't know?
..... during the holiday season people are usually shopping for others. Studies have shown people will buy less expensive options when shopping for others.
I was going to bring up this very point. Nanos also out sold full sized iPods last year.
"Our checks also confirmed our view that an individual buying an iPhone would not purchase iPod Touch and vice versa,"
Well duh! Thank you Mr analist (misspelling intentional) for pointing out this very subtle fact. I would have missed it completely if not for your deeply insightful analysis.
That's quite a clever spelling. Did you choose it because the correct spelling of analyst doesn't have "anal" in it like your version does? Or maybe you just don't like the letter y?
huh? The iPod Touch is necessary. It's okay that it's not outselling the nanos-- having it in the lineup and available to those that want the "latest greatest" thing is a required part of Apple's lineup. In addition, all those people who wanted an iPhone but didn't want a phone.
It's probably pretty smart - basically you have a bunch of Verizon customers buying touches, and ATT customers buying iPhones. Then when the Verizon contract expires, the person knows exactly what they want to replace their two devices with...
... despite a high level of interest in the new iPod Touch among shoppers, the more affordable iPod Nano remains the clear winning at the cash register."
This isn't surprising. In addition to costing $100 more (a very big deal when you're buying gifts), the Touch doesn't offer much in the way of added functionality.
By eliminating the click-wheel, many aspects of the UI (like one-handed operation) becomes very difficult, if not impossible. Of the features not shared with the nano, only Wi-Fi web surfing is substantial enough to be worth the price.
When the SDK comes out in February, and we start seeing third-party apps, I think that will change. Once it becomes possible to download a standard-PDA suite of apps (memo pad, full-featured address book and calendars, to-do list, etc.) I think you'll find a lot of people buying Touches, for use primarily as a Wi-Fi enabled PDA. I count myself among them (even with PDA software, I'll probably continue using my nano as my primary music player - the click wheel really is that much of a big deal for me.)
(BTW, if anyone from Mark-Space is reading this, the above paragraph is a strong hint for something that would be the perfect companion to The Missing Sync.)
When I worked at the Apple store Willow Bend, I noticed Christmas buyers always buying the lower cost iPods as gifts. This happens every Christmas season. Gift buyers are often cheap bastards. They never buy AppleCare or any other add-on.
By eliminating the click-wheel, many aspects of the UI (like one-handed operation) becomes very difficult, if not impossible. Of the features not shared with the nano, only Wi-Fi web surfing is substantial enough to be worth the price.
Um... doesn't the sex appeal count for anything? It is, after all, a big reason why any iPod sells at all over the competition. I can certainly tell you from my direct experience that when people touch that screen, they want it.
Um... doesn't the sex appeal count for anything? It is, after all, a big reason why any iPod sells at all over the competition. I can certainly tell you from my direct experience that when people touch that screen, they want it.
It may be "A" reason for many and a big reason for some, but I believe that the majority of people prefer the iPod because it's simple to use.
You know how Apple can make the iPod Touch attractive to me without relying on the price of flash memory?
Put a hard drive in it. Yeah, I said a hard drive. I know I'm not the only person out there who wants the Touch interface mated to the capacity of the Classic. I am still savoring the taste of disappointment with the last product line overhaul, because I was betting on having exactly that: touch + scads of storage. Until the company offers that, I'm out of the market for iPods.
If they do a 60GB iPod Touch with HD, then I might just be tempted. I am the sort of person who enjoys having my whole music collection on the go and in a lossless format. Heck, at that point the lines between iPod and PDA suddently start to gray.
As to a cheaper device selling out a more expensive device, well I'm hardly surprised. Also, if people step up to the iPhone, then this too is a good thing.
Apple's goal this Christmas is to place millions of video players, mainly nanos, into the hands of consumers. That will form the base for Apple's next big push in video downloads - both rentals and sales - and drive TV and movie studios (back, for some) to iTunes.
The goal of the iPod touch is to make the touch screen iPod capability available worldwide, since it will take iPhone at least another year to go into many markets. It's main target is not the US. However, in the US, the goal of the iPod touch is to make the new Zune look a generation behind.
Put a hard drive in it. Yeah, I said a hard drive. I know I'm not the only person out there who wants the Touch interface mated to the capacity of the Classic. I am still savoring the taste of disappointment with the last product line overhaul, because I was betting on having exactly that: touch + scads of storage. Until the company offers that, I'm out of the market for iPods.
An HDD defeats the directions the Touch is going in. I'm sure Apple won't miss one sale out of 40 million.
By eliminating the click-wheel, many aspects of the UI (like one-handed operation) becomes very difficult, if not impossible. Of the features not shared with the nano, only Wi-Fi web surfing is substantial enough to be worth the price.
Have you ever tried to use the iPod touch? I have a 16 gb one, and I have to say, operating it with one hand is simple and extremely easy. In fact, the touch screen makes everything easier, not more difficult.
Some features that are either not on the Nano, or are much better:
Calendar
Contacts
Wi-Fi web browsing
Widescreen (huge screen) videos
CoverFlow
For me, being able to manage events and contacts easily on my iPod (which is the only electronic device I carry with me) is great. Besides, have you noticed the huge screen?
You know how Apple can make the iPod Touch attractive to me without relying on the price of flash memory?
Put a hard drive in it. Yeah, I said a hard drive. I know I'm not the only person out there who wants the Touch interface mated to the capacity of the Classic. I am still savoring the taste of disappointment with the last product line overhaul, because I was betting on having exactly that: touch + scads of storage. Until the company offers that, I'm out of the market for iPods.
I don't think that would work. I read somewhere that there would be latency issues with a hard drive based iPod Touch with all the GUI animations it incorporates. A bit of it is already apparent with cover flow in the Classic.
I don't think that would work. I read somewhere that there would be latency issues with a hard drive based iPod Touch with all the GUI animations it incorporates. A bit of it is already apparent with cover flow in the Classic.
Not to mention that having a large touchscreen interface and a spinning HDD would require an even larger battery to maintain the same usage time. Now we have a much thicker device that weighs more because of the increase in storage and battery sizes. Not ideal.
Unsurprising. I feel exactly the same way. The Touch is nice, but there's no point to it when placed beside the iPhone. If you just want an iPod, the Nano is a great little player and the Classic has a lot of space. The Touch is the only one without a clear purpose.
I beg to differ. The iPod touch has a very clear purpose, and that is to provide the same functionality as the iPhone, minus the phone service charges. I have a 3G 20GB iPod and I would choose the iPod touch over the iPhone any day of the week; however, I will wait until the iPod touch gets more storage than my iPod. 32GB is enough to hold my entire music library, but it would quickly run out of space if I added my videos and photos so I will hold out until there is a 64GB model. The iPod touch should have 3G or WiMAX by the time it gets 64GB of storage, or at least, plenty of 3rd party applications created from the SDK that is going to be released in February.
Comments
An un-story.
Nano has always outsold the more expensive iPods, since Nano was introduced. And Mini before that.
And basing an article on the musings of an analyst that doesn't know the products he's talking about ("iPhone can do all an iPod can do..." ah, except hold 16 GB of content) only makes it worse.
First, the NEW Nano is nice. The old one was a shuffle with a screen. The new one does a lot, and is small, and makes you wonder why ever buy a shuffle. So the old was was hurt by the Shuffle and the new one will not be. So it's sales will be up.
That being said....
Second, the Touch is a BIG hit if it sells half the number of Nano's being sold.
I don't need anyone hanging around a Mall checking to see if Nano sales are up and ahead of Touch sales. The Touch is a HUGE success, and so the Nano is doing what is supposed to do. (fight back against the cheaper Shuffle)
Of and one more thing...... anyone out there surprised the Macbook is selling best?
That's only been a trend for .... as long as we can remember?
How about an article about something of interest? You know.... something we didn't know?
..... during the holiday season people are usually shopping for others. Studies have shown people will buy less expensive options when shopping for others.
I was going to bring up this very point. Nanos also out sold full sized iPods last year.
"Our checks also confirmed our view that an individual buying an iPhone would not purchase iPod Touch and vice versa,"
Well duh! Thank you Mr analist (misspelling intentional) for pointing out this very subtle fact. I would have missed it completely if not for your deeply insightful analysis.
That's quite a clever spelling. Did you choose it because the correct spelling of analyst doesn't have "anal" in it like your version does? Or maybe you just don't like the letter y?
huh? The iPod Touch is necessary. It's okay that it's not outselling the nanos-- having it in the lineup and available to those that want the "latest greatest" thing is a required part of Apple's lineup. In addition, all those people who wanted an iPhone but didn't want a phone.
It's probably pretty smart - basically you have a bunch of Verizon customers buying touches, and ATT customers buying iPhones. Then when the Verizon contract expires, the person knows exactly what they want to replace their two devices with...
... despite a high level of interest in the new iPod Touch among shoppers, the more affordable iPod Nano remains the clear winning at the cash register."
This isn't surprising. In addition to costing $100 more (a very big deal when you're buying gifts), the Touch doesn't offer much in the way of added functionality.
By eliminating the click-wheel, many aspects of the UI (like one-handed operation) becomes very difficult, if not impossible. Of the features not shared with the nano, only Wi-Fi web surfing is substantial enough to be worth the price.
When the SDK comes out in February, and we start seeing third-party apps, I think that will change. Once it becomes possible to download a standard-PDA suite of apps (memo pad, full-featured address book and calendars, to-do list, etc.) I think you'll find a lot of people buying Touches, for use primarily as a Wi-Fi enabled PDA. I count myself among them (even with PDA software, I'll probably continue using my nano as my primary music player - the click wheel really is that much of a big deal for me.)
(BTW, if anyone from Mark-Space is reading this, the above paragraph is a strong hint for something that would be the perfect companion to The Missing Sync.)
Of the features not shared with the nano, only Wi-Fi web surfing is substantial enough to be worth the price.
And a significantly larger screen.
By eliminating the click-wheel, many aspects of the UI (like one-handed operation) becomes very difficult, if not impossible. Of the features not shared with the nano, only Wi-Fi web surfing is substantial enough to be worth the price.
Um... doesn't the sex appeal count for anything? It is, after all, a big reason why any iPod sells at all over the competition. I can certainly tell you from my direct experience that when people touch that screen, they want it.
Um... doesn't the sex appeal count for anything? It is, after all, a big reason why any iPod sells at all over the competition. I can certainly tell you from my direct experience that when people touch that screen, they want it.
It may be "A" reason for many and a big reason for some, but I believe that the majority of people prefer the iPod because it's simple to use.
You know how Apple can make the iPod Touch attractive to me without relying on the price of flash memory?
Put a hard drive in it. Yeah, I said a hard drive. I know I'm not the only person out there who wants the Touch interface mated to the capacity of the Classic. I am still savoring the taste of disappointment with the last product line overhaul, because I was betting on having exactly that: touch + scads of storage. Until the company offers that, I'm out of the market for iPods.
But that would cannabilize Classic sales.
What scares me is that they apparently thought "perception of sales staff" is an accurate means of measure!?!
And then somebody was stupid enough to pay them to do this.
As to a cheaper device selling out a more expensive device, well I'm hardly surprised. Also, if people step up to the iPhone, then this too is a good thing.
The goal of the iPod touch is to make the touch screen iPod capability available worldwide, since it will take iPhone at least another year to go into many markets. It's main target is not the US. However, in the US, the goal of the iPod touch is to make the new Zune look a generation behind.
Why wouldn't the Nano be the most popular? It hits the consumer sweet spot, and it's the cheapest iPod you can buy with a screen.
If the Touch was being outsold by the Classic, OTOH, that'd say something. If Apple.com sales are any indication, though, it's not.
Put a hard drive in it. Yeah, I said a hard drive. I know I'm not the only person out there who wants the Touch interface mated to the capacity of the Classic. I am still savoring the taste of disappointment with the last product line overhaul, because I was betting on having exactly that: touch + scads of storage. Until the company offers that, I'm out of the market for iPods.
An HDD defeats the directions the Touch is going in. I'm sure Apple won't miss one sale out of 40 million.
By eliminating the click-wheel, many aspects of the UI (like one-handed operation) becomes very difficult, if not impossible. Of the features not shared with the nano, only Wi-Fi web surfing is substantial enough to be worth the price.
Have you ever tried to use the iPod touch? I have a 16 gb one, and I have to say, operating it with one hand is simple and extremely easy. In fact, the touch screen makes everything easier, not more difficult.
Some features that are either not on the Nano, or are much better:
Calendar
Contacts
Wi-Fi web browsing
Widescreen (huge screen) videos
CoverFlow
For me, being able to manage events and contacts easily on my iPod (which is the only electronic device I carry with me) is great. Besides, have you noticed the huge screen?
You know how Apple can make the iPod Touch attractive to me without relying on the price of flash memory?
Put a hard drive in it. Yeah, I said a hard drive. I know I'm not the only person out there who wants the Touch interface mated to the capacity of the Classic. I am still savoring the taste of disappointment with the last product line overhaul, because I was betting on having exactly that: touch + scads of storage. Until the company offers that, I'm out of the market for iPods.
I don't think that would work. I read somewhere that there would be latency issues with a hard drive based iPod Touch with all the GUI animations it incorporates. A bit of it is already apparent with cover flow in the Classic.
I don't think that would work. I read somewhere that there would be latency issues with a hard drive based iPod Touch with all the GUI animations it incorporates. A bit of it is already apparent with cover flow in the Classic.
Not to mention that having a large touchscreen interface and a spinning HDD would require an even larger battery to maintain the same usage time. Now we have a much thicker device that weighs more because of the increase in storage and battery sizes. Not ideal.
Unsurprising. I feel exactly the same way. The Touch is nice, but there's no point to it when placed beside the iPhone. If you just want an iPod, the Nano is a great little player and the Classic has a lot of space. The Touch is the only one without a clear purpose.
I beg to differ. The iPod touch has a very clear purpose, and that is to provide the same functionality as the iPhone, minus the phone service charges. I have a 3G 20GB iPod and I would choose the iPod touch over the iPhone any day of the week; however, I will wait until the iPod touch gets more storage than my iPod. 32GB is enough to hold my entire music library, but it would quickly run out of space if I added my videos and photos so I will hold out until there is a 64GB model. The iPod touch should have 3G or WiMAX by the time it gets 64GB of storage, or at least, plenty of 3rd party applications created from the SDK that is going to be released in February.