I would have loved to see a GPS addition to the iPod Touch touch. I own a first generation iPhone and I've played with a co-workers 3G iPhone and I have to say that the GPS feature is pretty cool (but realistically, I have GPS in my car, so I don't really need another device that performs this function). Having GPS and loading third party apps and being able to locate friends/family (think boost mobile) might be a killer app for people that don't want to switch to AT&T.
iPod Classic-
I can't speak for everyone (just me) but I use my Powerbook (soon to be Macbook Pro when Apple releases an update) mainly for work. I upgraded my hard drive to 160GB and it's almost full, but only 30-40GB is dedicated to media that can be transferred to an ipod. How many of Apple's target market would be able to utilize 240GB HDDs, let alone 160GB to media that can be transferred to an iPod. That's probably why they dropped the 160GB from their line. I'm sure that most of Apple's users don't even have HDDs that big (think mac mini, older Imac, older laptops). I consider myself a typical Apple user, I have a an iMac G5 for my son with a 120GB HDD and a macbook for my wife with a 120GB HDD. I think a 160GB iPod Classic is a little overkill (for now).
Ipod Nano -
I like the new colors, but honestly, my 2nd generation Nano that's compatible with the NIke+ will last me for the next few years.
Random Thoughts -
I'm worried about the longevity of the standalone iPod line moving forward now that the iPhone is available. I have many friends in Japan and the U.S. that simply want to carry 1 device in their pocket. 16GB is sufficient for a lot of user's that don't mind transferring specific playlists and this may cut into regular iPod sales. Of course users of the iPhone have to deal with the deficiencies of the networks they subscribe to including dropped calls on AT&Ts network and Softbank in Japan (DoCoMo is much better).
And by that time Toshiba's single platter 1.8" drives will be at 160 or 200GB widening the gap even more!
I can't follow Job's logic. Just because not many people bought 160GB iPods doesn't mean as few will buy 240GB iPods. I think 200GB/250GB is a special threshold where the iPod becomes a proper storage device. And Jobs simply missed that opportunity by not offering a 240GB iPod.
As the design didn't change it would have cost Apple so little to continue offering a 240GB model.
Shame on Apple for not doing it.
Less choice is never a nice thing.
Low sales figures for the 160GB probably indicate that most consumers do not value expansive storage in their portable players. Adding more of this would not markedly increase the perceived value in the market. Although I understand your point about the iPod becoming a viable storage device at 240GB, I don't think Apple wants people thinking of the iPod in that way. They want to maintain their strong position as a hip and dynamic device that is integrated with your daily life.
Obviously there are people like hoBIT want storage space on their iPod, so I was more interested in Apple's move toward smaller disk space on the Classic. I think that they are doing two things: 1) testing the limits of this market segment; and 2) beginning transition to an all-NAND iPod line. If the 120GB Classic sells as well as the 160GB, then Apple is one step closer to the intersection of "reasonably" priced high capacity solid state drives and magnetic drives. If Apple can establish a minimum storage size for the high-capacity crowd, then they can target that disk capacity with a future iteration of the iPod (Nano?) and do away with that Classic line.
On a side note, I used to be in the high-capacity camp. Then my massive (for its day) 1st gen iPod died (the Firewire connector wore out) and I was given a 1GB 1st gen Nano. Although appreciative, I didn't think the small capacity would work for me. However, I changed the way that I load music onto my iPod by using random playlists to select music. I think I actually listen to a great variety now then when I had more music on my iPod.
Frankly I think the Nano was an excellent up grade. The logic behind the Touch and Classic updates though is not processable. It appears that Apple has been blinded by the success of the features Touch offers up and failed to take into account a couple of realities.
First is simple; user storage demands will always grow on their choosen platform. No incremental increase in capacity on the device new purchasers choose often is just stupid. People are choosing Touch based devices over things like Classic due to the apps Touch allows for. This does not however mean they are happy being space constrained.
This should be pretty obvious too considering the calls for more flash or even hard disk based Touch devices. Just because people want a device with maxiumum functionality doesn't imply that they are happy with the space trade offs.
The other thing that seems to escape the IPod management group is that Apple is now offering HD video content on iTunes. While I haven't gone through the whole catalog we are talking big files here. Just buffering a couple of 1.5 files to Touch will cut it's capacity quick. Frankly it is like one organization in the company doesn't know what the other is up to. The new Touch as introduced is functionally disfunctional with some of Apples other initiatives. Add in propritary expansion (Nike) over generic I/O like BluTooth and you really have to wonder who the hell is Apple trying to serve here. They certainly don't have the customer at heart nor the future of the product line.
So yeah the new Touch is a big disappointment. It is a very minimal upgrade that only addresses a couple of user concerns.
On a side note, I used to be in the high-capacity camp. Then my massive (for its day) 1st gen iPod died (the Firewire connector wore out) and I was given a 1GB 1st gen Nano. Although appreciative, I didn't think the small capacity would work for me. However, I changed the way that I load music onto my iPod by using random playlists to select music. I think I actually listen to a great variety now then when I had more music on my iPod.
That is all well and good if you look at the Touch as being an MP 3 player only. To a lot of people it is much more than that. This you have a problem with respect to how much space you can reserve for music storage. If you think of Touch as if it was a micro computer you will start to see why many of us want more storage space and want it now.
The Nano is a much better choice for people looking for a device that is primarliy an MP 3 player. If you look at Touch and think it is another MP 3 player then you aren't seeing what many Touch users are seeing. Touch is very much a multi functional device in the sense of a computer.
Good point. I didn't mean to imply that capacity was a non-issue, rather that consumers don't generally seem to be treating it as the main purchasing criterion when comparing a Nano with a Classic. Throwing a Touch or iPhone in the mix may change things, but, in general, it looks like people are buying functionality over storage space. That said, Apple will obviously want to increase storage on its devices as the prices come down.
Comments
I would have loved to see a GPS addition to the iPod Touch touch. I own a first generation iPhone and I've played with a co-workers 3G iPhone and I have to say that the GPS feature is pretty cool (but realistically, I have GPS in my car, so I don't really need another device that performs this function). Having GPS and loading third party apps and being able to locate friends/family (think boost mobile) might be a killer app for people that don't want to switch to AT&T.
iPod Classic-
I can't speak for everyone (just me) but I use my Powerbook (soon to be Macbook Pro when Apple releases an update) mainly for work. I upgraded my hard drive to 160GB and it's almost full, but only 30-40GB is dedicated to media that can be transferred to an ipod. How many of Apple's target market would be able to utilize 240GB HDDs, let alone 160GB to media that can be transferred to an iPod. That's probably why they dropped the 160GB from their line. I'm sure that most of Apple's users don't even have HDDs that big (think mac mini, older Imac, older laptops). I consider myself a typical Apple user, I have a an iMac G5 for my son with a 120GB HDD and a macbook for my wife with a 120GB HDD. I think a 160GB iPod Classic is a little overkill (for now).
Ipod Nano -
I like the new colors, but honestly, my 2nd generation Nano that's compatible with the NIke+ will last me for the next few years.
Random Thoughts -
I'm worried about the longevity of the standalone iPod line moving forward now that the iPhone is available. I have many friends in Japan and the U.S. that simply want to carry 1 device in their pocket. 16GB is sufficient for a lot of user's that don't mind transferring specific playlists and this may cut into regular iPod sales. Of course users of the iPhone have to deal with the deficiencies of the networks they subscribe to including dropped calls on AT&Ts network and Softbank in Japan (DoCoMo is much better).
And by that time Toshiba's single platter 1.8" drives will be at 160 or 200GB widening the gap even more!
I can't follow Job's logic. Just because not many people bought 160GB iPods doesn't mean as few will buy 240GB iPods. I think 200GB/250GB is a special threshold where the iPod becomes a proper storage device. And Jobs simply missed that opportunity by not offering a 240GB iPod.
As the design didn't change it would have cost Apple so little to continue offering a 240GB model.
Shame on Apple for not doing it.
Less choice is never a nice thing.
Low sales figures for the 160GB probably indicate that most consumers do not value expansive storage in their portable players. Adding more of this would not markedly increase the perceived value in the market. Although I understand your point about the iPod becoming a viable storage device at 240GB, I don't think Apple wants people thinking of the iPod in that way. They want to maintain their strong position as a hip and dynamic device that is integrated with your daily life.
Obviously there are people like hoBIT want storage space on their iPod, so I was more interested in Apple's move toward smaller disk space on the Classic. I think that they are doing two things: 1) testing the limits of this market segment; and 2) beginning transition to an all-NAND iPod line. If the 120GB Classic sells as well as the 160GB, then Apple is one step closer to the intersection of "reasonably" priced high capacity solid state drives and magnetic drives. If Apple can establish a minimum storage size for the high-capacity crowd, then they can target that disk capacity with a future iteration of the iPod (Nano?) and do away with that Classic line.
On a side note, I used to be in the high-capacity camp. Then my massive (for its day) 1st gen iPod died (the Firewire connector wore out) and I was given a 1GB 1st gen Nano. Although appreciative, I didn't think the small capacity would work for me. However, I changed the way that I load music onto my iPod by using random playlists to select music. I think I actually listen to a great variety now then when I had more music on my iPod.
First is simple; user storage demands will always grow on their choosen platform. No incremental increase in capacity on the device new purchasers choose often is just stupid. People are choosing Touch based devices over things like Classic due to the apps Touch allows for. This does not however mean they are happy being space constrained.
This should be pretty obvious too considering the calls for more flash or even hard disk based Touch devices. Just because people want a device with maxiumum functionality doesn't imply that they are happy with the space trade offs.
The other thing that seems to escape the IPod management group is that Apple is now offering HD video content on iTunes. While I haven't gone through the whole catalog we are talking big files here. Just buffering a couple of 1.5 files to Touch will cut it's capacity quick. Frankly it is like one organization in the company doesn't know what the other is up to. The new Touch as introduced is functionally disfunctional with some of Apples other initiatives. Add in propritary expansion (Nike) over generic I/O like BluTooth and you really have to wonder who the hell is Apple trying to serve here. They certainly don't have the customer at heart nor the future of the product line.
So yeah the new Touch is a big disappointment. It is a very minimal upgrade that only addresses a couple of user concerns.
Dave
......
On a side note, I used to be in the high-capacity camp. Then my massive (for its day) 1st gen iPod died (the Firewire connector wore out) and I was given a 1GB 1st gen Nano. Although appreciative, I didn't think the small capacity would work for me. However, I changed the way that I load music onto my iPod by using random playlists to select music. I think I actually listen to a great variety now then when I had more music on my iPod.
That is all well and good if you look at the Touch as being an MP 3 player only. To a lot of people it is much more than that. This you have a problem with respect to how much space you can reserve for music storage. If you think of Touch as if it was a micro computer you will start to see why many of us want more storage space and want it now.
The Nano is a much better choice for people looking for a device that is primarliy an MP 3 player. If you look at Touch and think it is another MP 3 player then you aren't seeing what many Touch users are seeing. Touch is very much a multi functional device in the sense of a computer.
Dave