I'm actually surprised that it's not marketed as the perfect companion for a MacBook Air.
Better yet - currently with iTunes we have our whole library on the computer (say 40GB for example) and sync a smaller amount to our iPod Nano (say 7GB). It's a pity that we can't have our whole library on our iPod Classic (say 40GB) and sync a smaller amount to our MacBook (7GB).
Turn the model on its head. Make the classic the device where all our media is stored and free up space on the computer.
Brilliant... use the small, portable, frequently lost, dropped or broken device as the primary storage device, and the larger, more secure, harder to steal device as the secondary....
I'm actually surprised that it's not marketed as the perfect companion for a MacBook Air.
Better yet - currently with iTunes we have our whole library on the computer (say 40GB for example) and sync a smaller amount to our iPod Nano (say 7GB). It's a pity that we can't have our whole library on our iPod Classic (say 40GB) and sync a smaller amount to our MacBook (7GB).
Turn the model on its head. Make the classic the device where all our media is stored and free up space on the computer.
(ps. Same could work for the 160GB AppleTV. Use that as the media repository, sync a subset to your laptop).
I really like your idea. But isn't it more dangerous to put all your media collection on a portable device? You can lose everything you have if it's stolen or damaged.
I believe that the Classic will stay on the market because it is the only one with the drive space that it provides.
I'm one that used the HD feature to use the largest part of my Classic for data backup when traveling on business. Longest flights were in the 14 - 15 hour range and the Classic was perfect - both a backup and an iPod.
For others it's carrying around their full CD collection (as well as their friends) and for others it can be a backup for their pic collection, etc.
If it sells at a profit then keep it, or put the HD in a touch to replace it. Capacity has its place in the mobile market.
I bought my first LP (Beethoven's 3 third symphony) when I was 11, and bought quite a few each month for many years after. I started buying CD's finally in the late mid '80's. Actually, my buying isn't nearly as great as many people I know. One friend has over 20,000 LPs, and over 10,000 CDs. Most people I know have close to as many as myself, to between mine and my other friend. My old LPs cost about $4.50 in those early '60s dollars, and went up from there as time went by. Using this site, one can check what the dollar was was worth in earlier days. $4.50 in todays dollars would be $31.18.
Brilliant... use the small, portable, frequently lost, dropped or broken device as the primary storage device, and the larger, more secure, harder to steal device as the secondary....
He's not quite saying that.
It's more like a backup for your portable. I would think that the collection would be on your main system at home, or perhaps a network storage device thats much bigger.
Wow, at $0.99 per song, (or $9.99 per CD you've bought over the years), that is a huge investment in music... of course you would never consider securing a copy of music for yourself without compensating the artist in some way... would you?
There are many older people who used to BUY music in various formats. I still do. I have almost 8000 CD plus LPs and so on. I have been loading many of my CDs onto my Mac and backup HDs. I would love to have as much of that music as possible on an iPod to take to my studio or my office where I hook up to real STEREOS. Not via mini headsets. I want the best Hi Fi possible and I am not alone.
Yes most people use iPods on the go and HI FI quality does not matter much to them. But many use the Classic as their record collection away from home and play not though computers or headphones but through really great speakers.
I'm 50 and even my 18 year son now knows the difference in sound quality. Maybe a couple of hundred songs I got free but they are alternate versions or demos that are not available commercially. I am so for supporting artists and hate those who feel entitled to download for free
I really like your idea. But isn't it more dangerous to put all your media collection on a portable device? You can lose everything you have if it's stolen or damaged.
Edit: Whoops, cameronj got it first.
To be honest, yes it is (for the iPod). The AppleTV I'd be less concerned about.
Of course, if you don't have the hard disk space currently, what do you do now? Simply not go beyond 7GB?
ps.
Ideally you'd still back up your iPod library via TimeMachine. My music is backed up now.
Forgetting the iPod itself, I'd like to have my main iTunes library on an external disk, selectively syncing a small subset of my media to my internal disk (and a large subset, or all of it, to my iPod)
There are many older people who used to BUY music in various formats. I still do. I have almost 8000 CD plus LPs and so on. I have been loading many of my CDs onto my Mac and backup HDs. I would love to have as much of that music as possible on an iPod to take to my studio or my office where I hook up to real STEREOS. Not via mini headsets. I want the best Hi Fi possible and I am not alone.
Yes most people use iPods on the go and HI FI quality does not matter much to them. But many use the Classic as their record collection away from home and play not though computers or headphones but through really great speakers.
I'm 50 and even my 18 year son now knows the difference in sound quality. Maybe a couple of hundred songs I got free but they are alternate versions or demos that are not available commercially. I am so for supporting artists and hate those who feel entitled to download for free
That's right. I buy all of my music, and I've refrained from buying from iTunes for the same reason you gave (well, except for the Clash London is Burning music video, but it IS the Clash!)
That's right. I buy all of my music, and I've refrained from buying from iTunes for the same reason you gave (well, except for the Clash London is Burning music video, but it IS the Clash!)
Yes and I have bought itunes only releases by Beck, Randy Newman, Costello, Dylan and several songs or albums I can't seem to find anywhere else. But being in San Francisco I can buy amazing catalogue CDs fused for half the price and twice the quality than I can via iTunes. An album on iTunes should cost five bucks. No shipping or packaging and lesser quality!!!!!!!!!!
Yes and I have bought itunes only releases by Beck, Randy Newman, Costello, Dylan and several songs or albums I can't seem to find anywhere else. But being in San Francisco I can buy amazing catalogue CDs fused for half the price and twice the quality than I can via iTunes. An album on iTunes should cost five bucks. No shipping or packaging and lesser quality!!!!!!!!!!
I don't count it as a buy really, but I have bought a few songs that I wanted to listen to before buying an album, or was curious about. I save them, but use the album instead. My wife, on the other hand, has bought at least a couple hundred songs. She buys folk, country classics, etc. Sometimes they're impossible to get otherwise. She only listens to them on her computer.
I was a DJ in college and got tons of CDs from the record companies as well as the used bins at the shops. I was well over 1000 when I started selling them off. I was just one person on a staff of about 40 in one University Radio station out of how many hundreds? Oh, and the staff turn over abut 10% every year due to graduations and incoming students -- oh, and this is just on potential target market for the classic, I'm sure there are many other examples. Music is a big deal to us and we want it all in one place that can be on the go (in addition to our computer and the 3 DVD back-up sets I have at home, work and my parents house - just to make sure I never lose it!
As somebody with over half a terrabyte of music (mostly Apple Lossless), I am just glad that simplify media is here. Storing your music on your portable device is so 20th century.
I just look forward to the day when our portable devices have a wider highway to exchange data so that I can beam full Apple Lossless format to wherever I happen to be.
I'm always a little baffled when people suggest that 160G is more than big enough for anyone. What they actually mean is that it's more than big enough for them and anyone else with a collection smaller than 160G.
Personally my ideal would be a pairing of ipod classic with enough room for my whole collection (so it would need to be around 200G - I don't know why anyone would want a bigger one!) for when I go away and a nano that is big enough to take a few classics plus at least a years worth of new stuff plus a selection of podcasts for everyday lightweight use. Unfortunately 8G isn't enough for this so I'm waiting hopefully for a 16G choice in a few weeks time. I know there's a 16G itouch but I'm one of those that likes to control my ipod without looking at it.
Wow, at $0.99 per song, (or $9.99 per CD you've bought over the years), that is a huge investment in music... of course you would never consider securing a copy of music for yourself without compensating the artist in some way... would you?
That's assuming someone is stupid enough to limit themselves to purchasing music from only the iTunes Store. Smart shoppers don't lock themselves into one store for purchases. I have over 7000 LEGALLY ACQUIRED songs on my iPod and it didn't cost me anywhere near the $4000-7000 your math would imply (I think I have around 400 CD's). Less than 5% of that is from the iTunes Store and many of those are the weekly free tracks.
I'm always a little baffled when people suggest that 160G is more than big enough for anyone.
No one is saying that. What people are saying is that <100 GB (no one would suggest that 16 GB fits this description) makes for a large enough iPod that the market for anything larger is largely pointless (in terms of size) for Apple to chase.
Have you ever done a placebo test? I.E. Encode in 256 AAC vs Lossless and see if you can hear the difference without knowing which one you are listening to?
Honestly, no, and I don't have the equipment for it. Lossless is, however, far more useful for archival and transcoding purposes. And disk space is cheap, but that hardly matters if Apple choose to not provide it.
No one is saying that. What people are saying is that <100 GB (no one would suggest that 16 GB fits this description) makes for a large enough iPod that the market for anything larger is largely pointless (in terms of size) for Apple to chase.
Sorry, this is one of the posts that I obviously misinterpreted:
"Classic should not go beyong 160Gb. That's just insane."
There must be a significant market of people who, like me, decide that there's no point in buying a new ipod until they can squeeze their entire collection onto it.
Comments
I'm actually surprised that it's not marketed as the perfect companion for a MacBook Air.
Better yet - currently with iTunes we have our whole library on the computer (say 40GB for example) and sync a smaller amount to our iPod Nano (say 7GB). It's a pity that we can't have our whole library on our iPod Classic (say 40GB) and sync a smaller amount to our MacBook (7GB).
Turn the model on its head. Make the classic the device where all our media is stored and free up space on the computer.
Brilliant... use the small, portable, frequently lost, dropped or broken device as the primary storage device, and the larger, more secure, harder to steal device as the secondary....
I'm actually surprised that it's not marketed as the perfect companion for a MacBook Air.
Better yet - currently with iTunes we have our whole library on the computer (say 40GB for example) and sync a smaller amount to our iPod Nano (say 7GB). It's a pity that we can't have our whole library on our iPod Classic (say 40GB) and sync a smaller amount to our MacBook (7GB).
Turn the model on its head. Make the classic the device where all our media is stored and free up space on the computer.
(ps. Same could work for the 160GB AppleTV. Use that as the media repository, sync a subset to your laptop).
I really like your idea. But isn't it more dangerous to put all your media collection on a portable device? You can lose everything you have if it's stolen or damaged.
Edit: Whoops, cameronj got it first.
I believe that the Classic will stay on the market because it is the only one with the drive space that it provides.
I'm one that used the HD feature to use the largest part of my Classic for data backup when traveling on business. Longest flights were in the 14 - 15 hour range and the Classic was perfect - both a backup and an iPod.
For others it's carrying around their full CD collection (as well as their friends) and for others it can be a backup for their pic collection, etc.
If it sells at a profit then keep it, or put the HD in a touch to replace it. Capacity has its place in the mobile market.
I bought my first LP (Beethoven's 3 third symphony) when I was 11, and bought quite a few each month for many years after. I started buying CD's finally in the late mid '80's. Actually, my buying isn't nearly as great as many people I know. One friend has over 20,000 LPs, and over 10,000 CDs. Most people I know have close to as many as myself, to between mine and my other friend. My old LPs cost about $4.50 in those early '60s dollars, and went up from there as time went by. Using this site, one can check what the dollar was was worth in earlier days. $4.50 in todays dollars would be $31.18.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
A number of them have started buying music servers. I'm thinking of doing that as well.
I'm actually surprised that it's not marketed as the perfect companion for a MacBook Air.
Turn the model on its head. Make the classic the device where all our media is stored and free up space on the computer.
(ps. Same could work for the 160GB AppleTV. Use that as the media repository, sync a subset to your laptop).
Funny you should say that, but it's true. I've actually told people to do that.
Brilliant... use the small, portable, frequently lost, dropped or broken device as the primary storage device, and the larger, more secure, harder to steal device as the secondary....
He's not quite saying that.
It's more like a backup for your portable. I would think that the collection would be on your main system at home, or perhaps a network storage device thats much bigger.
Wow, at $0.99 per song, (or $9.99 per CD you've bought over the years), that is a huge investment in music... of course you would never consider securing a copy of music for yourself without compensating the artist in some way... would you?
There are many older people who used to BUY music in various formats. I still do. I have almost 8000 CD plus LPs and so on. I have been loading many of my CDs onto my Mac and backup HDs. I would love to have as much of that music as possible on an iPod to take to my studio or my office where I hook up to real STEREOS. Not via mini headsets. I want the best Hi Fi possible and I am not alone.
Yes most people use iPods on the go and HI FI quality does not matter much to them. But many use the Classic as their record collection away from home and play not though computers or headphones but through really great speakers.
I'm 50 and even my 18 year son now knows the difference in sound quality. Maybe a couple of hundred songs I got free but they are alternate versions or demos that are not available commercially. I am so for supporting artists and hate those who feel entitled to download for free
I really like your idea. But isn't it more dangerous to put all your media collection on a portable device? You can lose everything you have if it's stolen or damaged.
Edit: Whoops, cameronj got it first.
To be honest, yes it is (for the iPod). The AppleTV I'd be less concerned about.
Of course, if you don't have the hard disk space currently, what do you do now? Simply not go beyond 7GB?
ps.
Ideally you'd still back up your iPod library via TimeMachine. My music is backed up now.
Forgetting the iPod itself, I'd like to have my main iTunes library on an external disk, selectively syncing a small subset of my media to my internal disk (and a large subset, or all of it, to my iPod)
There are many older people who used to BUY music in various formats. I still do. I have almost 8000 CD plus LPs and so on. I have been loading many of my CDs onto my Mac and backup HDs. I would love to have as much of that music as possible on an iPod to take to my studio or my office where I hook up to real STEREOS. Not via mini headsets. I want the best Hi Fi possible and I am not alone.
Yes most people use iPods on the go and HI FI quality does not matter much to them. But many use the Classic as their record collection away from home and play not though computers or headphones but through really great speakers.
I'm 50 and even my 18 year son now knows the difference in sound quality. Maybe a couple of hundred songs I got free but they are alternate versions or demos that are not available commercially. I am so for supporting artists and hate those who feel entitled to download for free
That's right. I buy all of my music, and I've refrained from buying from iTunes for the same reason you gave (well, except for the Clash London is Burning music video, but it IS the Clash!)
That's right. I buy all of my music, and I've refrained from buying from iTunes for the same reason you gave (well, except for the Clash London is Burning music video, but it IS the Clash!)
Yes and I have bought itunes only releases by Beck, Randy Newman, Costello, Dylan and several songs or albums I can't seem to find anywhere else. But being in San Francisco I can buy amazing catalogue CDs fused for half the price and twice the quality than I can via iTunes. An album on iTunes should cost five bucks. No shipping or packaging and lesser quality!!!!!!!!!!
But isn't it more dangerous to put all your media collection on a portable device?
Yes.
I really like your idea.
Why?
Yes and I have bought itunes only releases by Beck, Randy Newman, Costello, Dylan and several songs or albums I can't seem to find anywhere else. But being in San Francisco I can buy amazing catalogue CDs fused for half the price and twice the quality than I can via iTunes. An album on iTunes should cost five bucks. No shipping or packaging and lesser quality!!!!!!!!!!
I don't count it as a buy really, but I have bought a few songs that I wanted to listen to before buying an album, or was curious about. I save them, but use the album instead. My wife, on the other hand, has bought at least a couple hundred songs. She buys folk, country classics, etc. Sometimes they're impossible to get otherwise. She only listens to them on her computer.
Why?
If you had a MacBook Air, lots of music/media, and a 160GB iPod - how would you choose to access your media?
I just look forward to the day when our portable devices have a wider highway to exchange data so that I can beam full Apple Lossless format to wherever I happen to be.
Personally my ideal would be a pairing of ipod classic with enough room for my whole collection (so it would need to be around 200G - I don't know why anyone would want a bigger one!) for when I go away and a nano that is big enough to take a few classics plus at least a years worth of new stuff plus a selection of podcasts for everyday lightweight use. Unfortunately 8G isn't enough for this so I'm waiting hopefully for a 16G choice in a few weeks time. I know there's a 16G itouch but I'm one of those that likes to control my ipod without looking at it.
Wow, at $0.99 per song, (or $9.99 per CD you've bought over the years), that is a huge investment in music... of course you would never consider securing a copy of music for yourself without compensating the artist in some way... would you?
That's assuming someone is stupid enough to limit themselves to purchasing music from only the iTunes Store. Smart shoppers don't lock themselves into one store for purchases. I have over 7000 LEGALLY ACQUIRED songs on my iPod and it didn't cost me anywhere near the $4000-7000 your math would imply (I think I have around 400 CD's). Less than 5% of that is from the iTunes Store and many of those are the weekly free tracks.
If you had a MacBook Air, lots of music/media, and a 160GB iPod - how would you choose to access your media?
On my desktop, or larger laptop. Wait, you don't honestly mean that someone is dumb enough to use an Air as their primary computer, right?
I'm always a little baffled when people suggest that 160G is more than big enough for anyone.
No one is saying that. What people are saying is that <100 GB (no one would suggest that 16 GB fits this description) makes for a large enough iPod that the market for anything larger is largely pointless (in terms of size) for Apple to chase.
Have you ever done a placebo test? I.E. Encode in 256 AAC vs Lossless and see if you can hear the difference without knowing which one you are listening to?
Honestly, no, and I don't have the equipment for it. Lossless is, however, far more useful for archival and transcoding purposes. And disk space is cheap, but that hardly matters if Apple choose to not provide it.
/Adrian
No one is saying that. What people are saying is that <100 GB (no one would suggest that 16 GB fits this description) makes for a large enough iPod that the market for anything larger is largely pointless (in terms of size) for Apple to chase.
Sorry, this is one of the posts that I obviously misinterpreted:
"Classic should not go beyong 160Gb. That's just insane."
There must be a significant market of people who, like me, decide that there's no point in buying a new ipod until they can squeeze their entire collection onto it.