Look at the click-wheel. Now imagine it sideways when watching videos in landscape. Error - does not compute.
Sure, it would still function, the only thing that would be confusing is the orientation of the printed symbols so the use wouldn't know if the buttons had changed locations to match the orientation or they still have to use them from a wonky position, which is why I think Apple's solution would be to have to have a dynamic button solution. They issues a patent earlier this year that would light up the back of the clickwheel. The patent images showed some goofy usage but I think this could be used for this type of design. I don't think Apple will release an iPod with a 90° orientation for video viewing if they don't offer dynamic control buttons; it's just not very Apple.
Look at the click-wheel. Now imagine it sideways when watching videos in landscape. Error - does not compute.
You'd either be pressing up and down to fast forward and reverse, left to go back to the list and right to play/pause, OR the click-wheel controls would auto-change while the icons indicating the different functions on the physical wheel would remain the same.
Neither mode of control makes sense.
What is the difference from when my iPod is sitting on its side in my pocket, I still know the button at the bottom is pause
Sure, it would still function, the only thing that would be confusing is the orientation of the printed symbols so the use wouldn't know if the buttons had changed locations to match the orientation or they still have to use them from a wonky position, which is why I think Apple's solution would be to have to have a dynamic button solution. They issues a patent earlier this year that would light up the back of the clickwheel. The patent images showed some goofy usage but I think this could be used for this type of design. I don't think Apple will release an iPod with a 90° orientation for video viewing if they don't offer dynamic control buttons; it's just not very Apple.
I never meant to imply such an iPod would cease to function when placed on its side. I can put my 5.5 gen iPod video on its side and the click-wheel still works, right?
The problem is if this Zune-like iPod ever materialized, when playing a video the click-wheel labels would no longer make sense to a new user or someone trying one out in a store. As you say, Apple would have to implement a dynamic click-wheel, but why? This is a solution looking for a problem.
Apple isn't going to change the nano's 4:3 aspect ratio. It's the same ratio used in all of their current click-wheel iPods, including the 2nd generation "gumstick" nano and the 5th gen iPod video. Fairly recently Apple finally got all iPod click-wheel games to be compatible with iPod video, iPod classic, and 3rd gen iPod nano. So with the understanding that the aspect ratio is staying the same, there is no real point in Apple simply rotating the screen 90˚, requiring a complete hardware redesign and more expensive dynamic controls. Why require the user to rotate the device for video? The current nano doesn't require such a rotation. And what would be the benefit of a long and tall screen for non-video stuff? A few more visible items in a list? A stretched out "Now Playing" screen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
What is the difference from when my iPod is sitting on its side in my pocket, I still know the button at the bottom is pause
Do you watch videos in your pocket? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
I agree. I have no problem controlling my mobile phone or my difital camera when I turn it on its side to look at media.
I mostly agree with you there. It is a complex solution, but I have to wonder how well the current Nano is selling. I didn't like the 3G Nano until I saw it in person, but I do understand that there are though that don't like the way it feels in their hands... not that holding a candy-bar-style Nano sideways to play video would feel any better. I'd imagine it would feel worse.
There seems to be a lot of evidence pointing to this Nano coming to fruition so I was looking for a way that would make it feasible with what I think Apple's focus would be. You feel that it causes too many complexations and therefore the current basic design won't be changed. That certainly makes sense to me. The only other reason I can see Apple using this complex method to change the buttons on the clickwheel would be if this eventually moved it's way into an iPhone Nano. meaning, it looks like and feels like an iPod until you choose the phone, then the iPod controls turn to a phone's dial pad. This would be clumsy on round clickwheel but on a square one it would be fine, You'd still get regular clickwheel use out of it as it would still have a center button. I've tested it out and it's the inner circle's button that you find on the iPod, not the outer circle. Again, this is just brainstorming on a possibility on how and why Apple would go down such a route. I guess we'll find out in 4 days.
I mostly agree with you there. It is a complex solution, but I have to wonder how well the current Nano is selling. I didn't like the 3G Nano until I saw it in person, but I do understand that there are though that don't like the way it feels in their hands... not that holding a candy-bar-style Nano sideways to play video would feel any better. I'd imagine it would feel worse.
Well, from their most recent sales numbers, they said the iPod touch and iPod shuffle were their best selling. Who knows how far behind the nano is, but Apple certainly doesn't mind. They want to sell as many iPod touches as they're far more profitable. But at the Macworld before they introduced the 3rd gen nano in the fall, the 2nd gen nano was their best selling model. I'm sure the 3rd gen nano enticed a decent number of 2nd gen nano users irritated by their inability to watch TV shows or videos in general, having to squint, spinning their thumb around that tiny click-wheel, scrolling through that tiny screen. I can't remember, did they even play iPod click-wheel games? I think those Feist "1-2-3-4" ads that got in everybody's heads helped too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
There seems to be a lot of evidence pointing to this Nano coming to fruition so I was looking for a way that would make it feasible with what I think Apple's focus would be. You feel that it causes too many complexations and therefore the current basic design won't be changed. That certainly makes sense to me. The only other reason I can see Apple using this complex method to change the buttons on the clickwheel would be if this eventually moved it's way into an iPhone Nano. meaning, it looks like and feels like an iPod until you choose the phone, then the iPod controls turn to a phone's dial pad. This would be clumsy on round clickwheel but on a square one it would be fine, You'd still get regular clickwheel use out of it as it would still have a center button. I've tested it out and it's the inner circle's button that you find on the iPod, not the outer circle. Again, this is just brainstorming on a possibility on how and why Apple would go down such a route. I guess we'll find out in 4 days.
I'd counter that by saying there seems to be a lot of mock-ups pointing to this happening. And speculation being repeated and embellished. I don't see how releasing a new nano refashioned to mimic a failed Microsoft device, squircle pad, tall skinny screen and all would lead to a smaller form-factor iPhone. Apple likely has very little interest in trying to jump into the profitless, over-saturated "dumb" phone market just as they have shown no interest in trying their hand at the profitless, over-saturated ewaste PC market.
Just three more days!!! Then my Zune Nausea will ware off.
Well, from their most recent sales numbers, they said the iPod touch and iPod shuffle were their best selling.
If that is the case then I wouldn't expect any change with the Shuffle, expect perhaps for a colour change. They didn't add 2GB to the Shuffle or lower the price until sales dropped off considerably.
Quote:
..the 2nd gen nano was their best selling model.
That does give credence to Apple wanting to go back to what was working, which was a candy bar Nano. However, i got rid of my Nano and foresee never going back so long as I have my iPhone for typical use and my Shuffle for the gym. I imagine I am not alone but anecdotal data doesn't make for a good forecast.
Quote:
Apple likely has very little interest in trying to jump into the profitless, over-saturated "dumb" phone market just as they have shown no interest in trying their hand at the profitless, over-saturated ewaste PC market.
But I'm not looking at it being a profitless item, like other cell phones. I'm looking at it more like Sapprobaby looks at the current iPhone. "an iPod with a phone". Apple can still charge $200 for an 8GB iPhone Nano, which would probably be $50 from a US carrier. That consolidates the ubiquitous iPod with a ubiquitous simple use cell phone. Apple makes it's typical profit margin, cannibalizes it's own iPod Nano before other non-smartphones get the music player aspect of their cellphones working correctly, and get yet another customer using iTunes and potentially being a Mac or an iPhone 3G.
I don't think the release is imminent, but I think it is inevitable. With all the queues the carriers are taking from Apple on the UI side, the improvements of media software on cellphones and the cost of SDHCs being so cheap I can't see any other choice for Apple to maintain it's domination in the media player market.
That does give credence to Apple wanting to go back to what was working, which was a candy bar Nano.
Not necessarily. The iPhone, iPod touch and iPod shuffle could all simply be selling better, which makes sense. The iPhone is tremendously popular, the iPod touch is popular for those who can't afford higher smartphone data plans or in countries where the iPhone isn't yet officially available, and the shuffle's has probably seen a boost as people with iPhones and iPod touches don't see the value in the nano when they can get a shuffle for physical activities like exercising.
That doesn't mean nano sales have gone down. They may be up, but simply aren't selling as well as Apple's other devices, thus they didn't get a mention in Apple's sales notes. Apple has no real motivation to reinvigorate nano sales. They want to sell their most profitable products and their most profitable products...are selling very well. The main reason the shuffle kind of defies that logic is due to its universal draw - even to some nano owners, both 3rd and 2nd gen - as the durable "workout" iPod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
But I'm not looking at it being a profitless item, like other cell phones. I'm looking at it more like Sapprobaby looks at the current iPhone. "an iPod with a phone". Apple can still charge $200 for an 8GB iPhone Nano, which would probably be $50 from a US carrier. That consolidates the ubiquitous iPod with a ubiquitous simple use cell phone. Apple makes it's typical profit margin, cannibalizes it's own iPod Nano before other non-smartphones get the music player aspect of their cellphones working correctly, and get yet another customer using iTunes and potentially being a Mac or an iPhone 3G.
I don't think the release is imminent, but I think it is inevitable. With all the queues the carriers are taking from Apple on the UI side, the improvements of media software on cellphones and the cost of SDHCs being so cheap I can't see any other choice for Apple to maintain it's domination in the media player market.
What do you mean by "$50 from a US carrier?" Is it $200 or is it $50? Apple doesn't allow AT&T to sell their iPhone for less than what they sell it for at their own retail stores.
While the idea of people wanting to dial numbers and type text messages with a click-wheel or squircle pad instead of a far faster and intuitive physical keypad is a tad daft, it makes even less sense when you consider that competitors can go to $0. I guess I should have said near profitless "dumb" phone market. Apple would make very little and sell very few (again, because that market is over-saturated), especially with next Tuesday's iPod event, which will likely bring all prices down a notch to compete with the iPhone's new low price of entry.
Finally, how would releasing a click-wheel iPhone help maintain Apple's majority share of the "media player market?" Then it would be categorized as a...phone, not an iPod. That brings up another thing worth mentioning. While iPod sales only increased by something like 5% last year, which the uninformed tech media jumped on, it is still growing and more importantly, a little known device being categorized as a phone, but which is really a widescreen iPod as well is not being counted: the...iPhone!! If iPhone sales numbers had been counted, the pundits would have had nothing to scare people about.
What does you mean by "$50 from a US carrier?" Is it $200 or is it $50?
The current 8GB Nano is $150, I tacked on $50 for the phone and software parts to make it $200. My comment about it being $50 from a US carrier was the subsidized price. I can see that a $50 8GB iPhone Nano with a basic call plan would be popular. It may even be free, but I think $150 for a subsidization of a simple handset for a 24 month contract is a minimum these days.
Quote:
Apple doesn't allow AT&T to sell their iPhone for less than what they sell it for at their own retail stores.
That is because Apple, AT&T and Best Buy all sell them at the subsidized price. AT&T is paying Apple for the agreed upon difference, regardless. I know you know this, but I want to make sure we are on the same page.
Quote:
While the idea of people wanting to dial numbers and type text messages with a click-wheel or squircle pad instead of a far faster and intuitive physical keypad is a tad daft,
My idea made no mention of removing the keypad or the clickwheel. It was to integrate them so it can one or the other, as needed. It's hard to explain, easier to show, but I'm daft at Photoshop.
Quote:
it makes even less sense when you consider that competitors can go to $0. I guess I should have said near profitless "dumb" phone market. Apple would make very little and sell very few (again, because that market is over-saturated)
It's saturated with phones, but it's not saturated with phones that are quality PMPs. Eventually they will be better and Apple's iPods will have less reason to exist. You can only shrink a handheld device so far before it's time to consolidate into another device or consolidate another device into it. if you don't,s someone else will.
Quote:
Finally, how would releasing a click-wheel iPhone help maintain Apple's majority share of the "media player market?" Then it would be categorized as a...phone, not an iPod.
As previously stated, you are better off cannibalizing your own products than letting your competitor do it. If Sony-Erricson releases a basic cellphone with a worthy PMP that can hold 8, 16 or 32GB in it's MicroSD slot then the chances of them then buying an iPod Nano go away. It's better for Apple to have their customer base make a lateral move from iPod to iPhone so long as they keep the profits themselves.
Quote:
While iPod sales only increased by something like 5% last year, which the uninformed tech media jumped on, it is still growing and more importantly, a little known device being categorized as a phone, but which is really a widescreen iPod as well is not being counted: the...iPhone!! If iPhone sales numbers had been counted, the pundits would have had nothing to scare people about.
The anti-Apple media can talk about the iPod sales dropping all they want, but Apple's iPod percentages across the market are still high because their customers aren't foregoing the iPod for a competitor's device, but for another Apple device.
In the end, it's all about the profits which is why Apple made the iPhone to begin with. They knew it would cannibalize their iPod sales, but that doesn't matter if it makes them more money in the end. The current iPhone does not fit everyone's needs or wants so Apple will have to make an iPhone Nano for everyone else if they want to maintain their dominance in the actual PMP market.
That is because Apple, AT&T and Best Buy all sell them at the subsidized price. AT&T is paying Apple for the agreed upon difference, regardless. I know you know this, but I want to make sure we are on the same page.
Thanks for clarifying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
My idea made no mention of removing the keypad or the clickwheel. It was to integrate them so it can one or the other, as needed. It's hard to explain, easier to show, but I'm daft at Photoshop.
Ok, I missed that. Also, just saying, I wasn't calling you daft, but the idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
It's saturated with phones, but it's not saturated with phones that are quality PMPs. Eventually they will be better and Apple's iPods will have less reason to exist. You can only shrink a handheld device so far before it's time to consolidate into another device or consolidate another device into it. if you don't,s someone else will.
Yeah, and that sounds just like the argument for the xMac and Apple trying to compete in the over-saturated ewaste market. Obviously the low-end cell phone market is more competitive, but I don't see Apple settling for "low-end," as least in the way you are envisioning it. A scaled down iPhone that matches the dimentions of the current iPod nano, with WiFi and a MultiTouch display for $100 sounds semi-appealing. Clicky keypads have never been ideal, other than for blind texting in highschool under the desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
As previously stated, you are better off cannibalizing your own products than letting your competitor do it. If Sony-Erricson releases a basic cellphone with a worthy PMP that can hold 8, 16 or 32GB in it's MicroSD slot then the chances of them then buying an iPod Nano go away. It's better for Apple to have their customer base make a lateral move from iPod to iPhone so long as they keep the profits themselves.
To a certain extent, I agree with your first sentence. At the same time, while I believe Apple's future devices will include voice communication, I do question how that's achieved. If WiFi becomes widespread enough, hey, maybe we could have...free iChat voice and maybe even video chat. You'd still have the option of paying AT&T for when you can't find WiFi, but doing this would vastly reduce the power of these phone companies, which charge you left and right, outgoing calls, incoming calls, incoming texts, outgoing texts, running over your limit, etc. It's ridiculous! Then they have you sign anti-competitive contracts with charges for cancelation. Each of them now advertise their "unlimited" plans. Oh how nice...for the rich who can afford +$100 plans per month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
In the end, it's all about the profits which is why Apple made the iPhone to begin with. They knew it would cannibalize their iPod sales, but that doesn't matter if it makes them more money in the end. The current iPhone does not fit everyone's needs or wants so Apple will have to make an iPhone Nano for everyone else if they want to maintain their dominance in the actual PMP market.
I'm still confused. Are you saying an iPhone nano would be categorized as a phone or a PMP, or that smart phones are the new PMP?
I was basing my speculation largely on the following photo:
I figured the silver one posted earlier in this thread was yet another take on the same idea, but seeing the following picture from MacNN seems more realistic:
I still don't get how (if at all) they'll make the controls work when held horizontally. I wonder if the controls in that MacNN picture are actually a sticker Apple put on the click-wheel so it would be recognizable in stores, but then when you pull it out of the box, you take off the sticker and the controls are visible by backlighting as you suggested, solipsism? They would then reorient not only for video, but thanks to sensors inside that would allow for CoverFlow album browsing.
If Apple retires the iPod classic, I wonder if they'll update the "split-screen" UI or completely change it to something more akin to the iPod touch/iPhone UI like the mock-up below.
I'm still confused. Are you saying an iPhone nano would be categorized as a phone or a PMP, or that smart phones are the new PMP?
It would pushes into the phone category, but the sale would still be to Apple, so they wouldn't be loosing it to another cell manufacturer, or PMP makers. The PMP market still falls, but at least Apple's cellphone market would rise in direct relation to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Hmm, I may be changing my tune on the iPod nano.
I was basing my speculation largely on the following photo:
<image>
I figured the silver one posted earlier in this thread was yet another take on the same idea, but seeing the following picture from MacNN seems more realistic:
<mage>
I still don't get how (if at all) they'll make the controls work when held horizontally. I wonder if the controls in that MacNN picture are actually a sticker Apple put on the click-wheel so it would be recognizable in stores, but then when you pull it out of the box, you take off the sticker and the controls are visible by backlighting as you suggested, solipsism? They would then reorient not only for video, but thanks to sensors inside that would allow for CoverFlow album browsing.
If Apple retires the iPod classic, I wonder if they'll update the "split-screen" UI or completely change it to something more akin to the iPod touch/iPhone UI like the mock-up below.
Now that is what I'm thinking! That mockup look very slick, but I wonder if the buttons would have to be slickly larger because of the lighting technology needed to make the visual image.
As for an accelerometer, I think there are three possibilities.
1) None, it just changes to landscape mode when you play a video or when you choose Coverflow from the menu.
2) It has one which, like the Touch/iPhone will put the device into Coverflow when turned. How do these things affect battery life?
3) It has one, like in #2, but the accelerometer also is Nike+ built in. No need to buy the HW package for this anymore. Can the accelerometer work as well on the arm on in the pocket, as opposed to being on the shoe? How would Nike get their money? They had sold more than a million units as last year so I'd think that the sales would have had to drastically fallen or that they were high enough to warrant the automatic pairing of these touch devices into one.
Now that is what I'm thinking! That mockup look very slick, but I wonder if the buttons would have to be slickly larger because of the lighting technology needed to make the visual image.
As for an accelerometer, I think there are three possibilities.
1) None, it justjust changes to landscape mode when you play a video or when you choose Coverflow from the menu.
2) It has one which, like the Touch/iPhone will put the device into Coverflow when turned. How do these things affect battery life?
3) It has one, like in #2, but the accelerometer also is Nike_ built in. No need to buy the NW package for this anymore. Can the accelerometer work as well on the arm on in the pocket, as opposed to being on the shoe? How would Nike get their money. They had sold more than a million units as last year so I'd think that the sales would have had to drastically fallen or that they were high enough to warrant the automatic pairing of these touch devices into one.
Hmm, for some reason I didn't even consider your #1. Yeah, that could work too. I'm hoping for accelerometer support though, and especially, the dynamic click-wheel. I don't know about your third option due to the possible problems you brought up.
I liked that mock-up too. I doubt Apple would take the UI that far - there would be no easy way to click on the separate icons at the bottom - but something that fits in better with the Mobile OS X look would be more appealing and would better use the 4th gen nano's new screen (well, it's likely not really "new," just spun around 90˚).
I'm still surprised a tad by this move. I don't know, the 3rd gen nano's design seemed a bit odd at first, but I liked its kind of quirky squat style. That's why I feel like if Apple is going to simply flip the screen around, it's going to include an accelerometer and new UI. Otherwise it really wouldn't be an improvement over the 3rd gen model.
Now I'm really curious about the "one more thing" announcement. We know about the 4th gen nano now, the iPod touch is likely getting only a slight redesign (*crosses fingers that it doesn't adopt the iPhone 3G's plastic back*), all iPods will see lower prices and/or increased storage capacities, and having the iPhone 2.1 update ready for download would be great.
That leaves a potential iPod shuffle redesign (doubt it, but I'd like to see one with a dock connector, though that's largely unnecessary), iTunes 8.0 (doesn't seem likely or necessary; if it happens, i'm not expecting a major change in UI), and (hopefully) a discontinuation of the iPod classic (if not Tuesday, maybe at Macworld). None of that seems entirely exciting, so there's a chance of something really cool that nobody knows anything about. Just two more days!
That leaves a potential iPod shuffle redesign (doubt it, but I'd like to see one with a dock connector, though that's largely unnecessary),
I'm gonna have to say no on the dock connector. The 2G Shuffle is my favorite portal music player from anyone. I think I've sold quite a few by using my metallic orange one in the gym or the occasional store by simply wearing it. While it's a bit of drag to have a separate cable for my Shuffle, the charging and syncing over the headphone jack is an absolutely brilliant idea.
The 4GB model seems highly unlikely, despite the clamoring for it. My Apple Lossless songs average about 28MB for 4 minutes, which is the time Apple uses to determine how many songs will fit when measured against 128Kbps bitrate. While lossless size per second changes the content changes you could get about 150 songs on a 4GB Shuffle. I have about 30 for the gym. Also, as it stands now the Shuffle can't even play Apple Lossless. Why would they disallow this codec, and only this codec? It plays AIFF so I don't think it's a RAM issue. Doesn't lossless require more processing that the lossy codecs to play?
I might not be seeing the big picture, but the cost for the storage, the assumed profit margin, the fact that Apple only updated the Shuffle size after the sales drastically fell and the lack of screen all point to a colour change. The only other transformation that would be likely is to give it the tapering that is seen on that iPhone and suspected on the new Touch and Nano.
Quote:
iTunes 8.0 (doesn't seem likely or necessary; if it happens, i'm not expecting a major change in UI)
DED clearly pointed out that the version numbering in relation to the features mean nothing. Apple could call it v8 and have hardly any features or call it v7.8 with a whole bunch of new features. There will be new version since there will be updated iPods, and I think the rumours of v8 are going to come true, but I have no idea what to expect from the new software. Any ideas?
Quote:
and (hopefully) a discontinuation of the iPod classic (if not Tuesday, maybe at Macworld)
Like the Basque and their non-conforming language, I think there is a definite holdout of iPod users that want the excessive storage that the classic provides. If they killed it, I think these customers would go to another manufacturer for a HDD-based PMP. Until you can get a 128GB flash Touch I think Apple will have to offer this product.
As for changes, I see only a minor price reduction to be more completive. I see no evidence that the 2-platter 1.8" HDD has grown past 160GB, and since the 1-platter drive is at 120GB at a severally increased price (the Zune is going this route), it seems that keeping the current Classic line in place, but with a price reduction to better financial option for Apple than adding a 3rd model or dropping the 80GB for the 120GB model but with prices too close to each other.
Quote:
None of that seems entirely exciting, so there's a chance of something really cool that nobody know anything about. Just two more days!
I don't think I'm expecting much, but a new product is one of them.
I'm gonna have to say no on the dock connector. The 2G Shuffle is my favorite portable music player from anyone. I think I've sold quite a few by using my metallic orange one in the gym or the occasional store by simply wearing it. While it's a bit of drag to have a separate cable for my Shuffle, the charging and syncing over the headphone jack is an absolutely brilliant idea.
Yeah, having different cables was the only complaint I had, but Apple's never used a dock connector for the shuffle, and I agree, it's headphone jack syncing is rather clever and fast.
Quote:
The 4GB model seems highly unlikely, despite the clamoring for it. My Apple Lossless songs average about 28MB for 4 minutes, which is the time Apple uses to determine how many songs will fit when measured against 128Kbps bitrate. While lossless size per second changes the content changes you could get about 150 songs on a 4GB Shuffle. I have about 30 for the gym. Also, as it stands now the Shuffle can't even play Apple Lossless. Why would they disallow this codec, and only this codec? It plays AIFF so I don't think it's a RAM issue. Doesn't lossless require more processing that the lossy codecs to play?
I use 256kbps VBR AACs, so I'm not affected. I'm guessing you're right, some kind of hardware limitation, but it is strange that AIFFs can be played.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I might not be seeing the big picture, but the cost for the storage, the assumed profit margin, the fact that Apple only updated the Shuffle size after the sales drastically fell and the lack of screen all point to a colour change. The only other transformation that would be likely is to give it the tapering that is seen on that iPhone and suspected on the new Touch and Nano.
Agreed. Color change (maybe to match that orange 4th gen iPod nano) and perhaps some tapering. Talking strictly looks here. I have an idea that could make the shuffle more useful and unique, which I'll get to below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
DED clearly pointed out that the version numbering in relation to the features mean nothing. Apple could call it v8 and have hardly any features or call it v7.8 with a whole bunch of new features. There will be new version since there will be updated iPods, and I think the rumours of v8 are going to come true, but I have no idea what to expect from the new software. Any ideas?
Right, we're scrutinizing the same RDM article (note: my name's nat on there, if you hadn't already guessed ). In terms of new functionality, that's tough. I think a Mac section of the App Store is coming, but that likely wouldn't fit the the press conference's theme or subject matter. We already know about the App Store music bundle things, so maybe we'll hear more about that. Then there's always the fabled Beatles catalog on iTunes announcement, which would be cool. If they released their entire catalog in open iTunes Plus, that would send a serious message to the other major labels colluding against Apple. Can't think of anything else at the moment. Have any thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Like the Basque and their non-conforming language, I think there is a definite holdout of iPod users that want the excessive storage that the classic provides. If they killed it, I think these customers would go to another manufacturer for a HDD-based PMP. Until you can get a 128GB flash Touch I think Apple will have to offer this product.
Sure, and I consider myself one of those people...but like most of those people...I already have a large HDD-based iPod (80GB 5.5gen video). I believe the majority of those who need such a device already have one. If the iPod shuffle and the iPod touch are Apple's best selling iPods right now, with the nano not worthy of a mention in their latest sales notes, think of how low iPod classic sales are. It's the only iPod that really hasn't seen a real change in what, 3 or 4 years? The storage wars are largely over thanks to the iPod nano, iPhone and iPod touch, the latter two changing the major selling point from capacity to mobile web surfing, YouTube watching, CoverFlow browsing, photo viewing, email, and most recently, the App Store. Sure, we'll still see prices drop and/or storage capacity increase, but many people can't hope to fill up a 4GB nano, let alone a 32GB touch or 80GB classic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I don't think I'm expecting much, but a new product is one of them.
Alright, now I'll give my guess for the closest thing to a new product I can come up with. I don't think this has been suggested before (though it does sound familiar). The iPod shuffle is a nice device for physical labor in contrast to the iPhone or iPod touch, with their large, scratch-able screens and their lack of tactile buttons for music control (other than the included iPhone headphones w/ 1 button remote). While Apple provides their iPod Radio Remote for use with iPod nano and iPod classic/video, it is incompatible with the iPhone or iPod touch, which need it most.
So why not replace the limited $50 iPod remote with the $50 third generation iPod shuffle, which would sport a short 3.5mm headphone cord on one end and a headphone jack on the other, turning it into an iPod/iPhone remote? It could still be used as a standalone iPod shuffle - they wouldn't take away its internal storage or anything - but this would resolve an issue some people have with the iPod touch (and to a lesser extent, the iPhone replacing their click-wheel iPod) and make the shuffle even more useful.
vs.
Or, If it were possible, maybe they could just send out a software update to existing shuffle owners and then sell a special Y adapter plug.
Comments
Look at the click-wheel. Now imagine it sideways when watching videos in landscape. Error - does not compute.
Sure, it would still function, the only thing that would be confusing is the orientation of the printed symbols so the use wouldn't know if the buttons had changed locations to match the orientation or they still have to use them from a wonky position, which is why I think Apple's solution would be to have to have a dynamic button solution. They issues a patent earlier this year that would light up the back of the clickwheel. The patent images showed some goofy usage but I think this could be used for this type of design. I don't think Apple will release an iPod with a 90° orientation for video viewing if they don't offer dynamic control buttons; it's just not very Apple.
Look at the click-wheel. Now imagine it sideways when watching videos in landscape. Error - does not compute.
You'd either be pressing up and down to fast forward and reverse, left to go back to the list and right to play/pause, OR the click-wheel controls would auto-change while the icons indicating the different functions on the physical wheel would remain the same.
Neither mode of control makes sense.
What is the difference from when my iPod is sitting on its side in my pocket, I still know the button at the bottom is pause
What is the difference from when my iPod is sitting on its side in my pocket, I still know the button at the bottom is pause
I agree. I have no problem controlling my mobile phone or my difital camera when I turn it on its side to look at media.
Sure, it would still function, the only thing that would be confusing is the orientation of the printed symbols so the use wouldn't know if the buttons had changed locations to match the orientation or they still have to use them from a wonky position, which is why I think Apple's solution would be to have to have a dynamic button solution. They issues a patent earlier this year that would light up the back of the clickwheel. The patent images showed some goofy usage but I think this could be used for this type of design. I don't think Apple will release an iPod with a 90° orientation for video viewing if they don't offer dynamic control buttons; it's just not very Apple.
I never meant to imply such an iPod would cease to function when placed on its side. I can put my 5.5 gen iPod video on its side and the click-wheel still works, right?
The problem is if this Zune-like iPod ever materialized, when playing a video the click-wheel labels would no longer make sense to a new user or someone trying one out in a store. As you say, Apple would have to implement a dynamic click-wheel, but why? This is a solution looking for a problem.
Apple isn't going to change the nano's 4:3 aspect ratio. It's the same ratio used in all of their current click-wheel iPods, including the 2nd generation "gumstick" nano and the 5th gen iPod video. Fairly recently Apple finally got all iPod click-wheel games to be compatible with iPod video, iPod classic, and 3rd gen iPod nano. So with the understanding that the aspect ratio is staying the same, there is no real point in Apple simply rotating the screen 90˚, requiring a complete hardware redesign and more expensive dynamic controls.
What is the difference from when my iPod is sitting on its side in my pocket, I still know the button at the bottom is pause
Do you watch videos in your pocket? No.
I agree. I have no problem controlling my mobile phone or my difital camera when I turn it on its side to look at media.
Read above explanation.
This is a solution looking for a problem.
I mostly agree with you there. It is a complex solution, but I have to wonder how well the current Nano is selling. I didn't like the 3G Nano until I saw it in person, but I do understand that there are though that don't like the way it feels in their hands... not that holding a candy-bar-style Nano sideways to play video would feel any better. I'd imagine it would feel worse.
There seems to be a lot of evidence pointing to this Nano coming to fruition so I was looking for a way that would make it feasible with what I think Apple's focus would be. You feel that it causes too many complexations and therefore the current basic design won't be changed. That certainly makes sense to me. The only other reason I can see Apple using this complex method to change the buttons on the clickwheel would be if this eventually moved it's way into an iPhone Nano. meaning, it looks like and feels like an iPod until you choose the phone, then the iPod controls turn to a phone's dial pad. This would be clumsy on round clickwheel but on a square one it would be fine, You'd still get regular clickwheel use out of it as it would still have a center button. I've tested it out and it's the inner circle's button that you find on the iPod, not the outer circle. Again, this is just brainstorming on a possibility on how and why Apple would go down such a route. I guess we'll find out in 4 days.
I mostly agree with you there. It is a complex solution, but I have to wonder how well the current Nano is selling. I didn't like the 3G Nano until I saw it in person, but I do understand that there are though that don't like the way it feels in their hands... not that holding a candy-bar-style Nano sideways to play video would feel any better. I'd imagine it would feel worse.
Well, from their most recent sales numbers, they said the iPod touch and iPod shuffle were their best selling. Who knows how far behind the nano is, but Apple certainly doesn't mind. They want to sell as many iPod touches as they're far more profitable. But at the Macworld before they introduced the 3rd gen nano in the fall, the 2nd gen nano was their best selling model. I'm sure the 3rd gen nano enticed a decent number of 2nd gen nano users irritated by their inability to watch TV shows or videos in general, having to squint, spinning their thumb around that tiny click-wheel, scrolling through that tiny screen. I can't remember, did they even play iPod click-wheel games? I think those Feist "1-2-3-4" ads that got in everybody's heads helped too.
There seems to be a lot of evidence pointing to this Nano coming to fruition so I was looking for a way that would make it feasible with what I think Apple's focus would be. You feel that it causes too many complexations and therefore the current basic design won't be changed. That certainly makes sense to me. The only other reason I can see Apple using this complex method to change the buttons on the clickwheel would be if this eventually moved it's way into an iPhone Nano. meaning, it looks like and feels like an iPod until you choose the phone, then the iPod controls turn to a phone's dial pad. This would be clumsy on round clickwheel but on a square one it would be fine, You'd still get regular clickwheel use out of it as it would still have a center button. I've tested it out and it's the inner circle's button that you find on the iPod, not the outer circle. Again, this is just brainstorming on a possibility on how and why Apple would go down such a route. I guess we'll find out in 4 days.
I'd counter that by saying there seems to be a lot of mock-ups pointing to this happening.
Just three more days!!! Then my Zune Nausea will ware off.
Well, from their most recent sales numbers, they said the iPod touch and iPod shuffle were their best selling.
If that is the case then I wouldn't expect any change with the Shuffle, expect perhaps for a colour change. They didn't add 2GB to the Shuffle or lower the price until sales dropped off considerably.
..the 2nd gen nano was their best selling model.
That does give credence to Apple wanting to go back to what was working, which was a candy bar Nano. However, i got rid of my Nano and foresee never going back so long as I have my iPhone for typical use and my Shuffle for the gym. I imagine I am not alone but anecdotal data doesn't make for a good forecast.
Apple likely has very little interest in trying to jump into the profitless, over-saturated "dumb" phone market just as they have shown no interest in trying their hand at the profitless, over-saturated ewaste PC market.
But I'm not looking at it being a profitless item, like other cell phones. I'm looking at it more like Sapprobaby looks at the current iPhone. "an iPod with a phone". Apple can still charge $200 for an 8GB iPhone Nano, which would probably be $50 from a US carrier. That consolidates the ubiquitous iPod with a ubiquitous simple use cell phone. Apple makes it's typical profit margin, cannibalizes it's own iPod Nano before other non-smartphones get the music player aspect of their cellphones working correctly, and get yet another customer using iTunes and potentially being a Mac or an iPhone 3G.
I don't think the release is imminent, but I think it is inevitable. With all the queues the carriers are taking from Apple on the UI side, the improvements of media software on cellphones and the cost of SDHCs being so cheap I can't see any other choice for Apple to maintain it's domination in the media player market.
That does give credence to Apple wanting to go back to what was working, which was a candy bar Nano.
Not necessarily. The iPhone, iPod touch and iPod shuffle could all simply be selling better, which makes sense. The iPhone is tremendously popular, the iPod touch is popular for those who can't afford higher smartphone data plans or in countries where the iPhone isn't yet officially available, and the shuffle's has probably seen a boost as people with iPhones and iPod touches don't see the value in the nano when they can get a shuffle for physical activities like exercising.
That doesn't mean nano sales have gone down. They may be up, but simply aren't selling as well as Apple's other devices, thus they didn't get a mention in Apple's sales notes. Apple has no real motivation to reinvigorate nano sales. They want to sell their most profitable products and their most profitable products...are selling very well. The main reason the shuffle kind of defies that logic is due to its universal draw - even to some nano owners, both 3rd and 2nd gen - as the durable "workout" iPod.
But I'm not looking at it being a profitless item, like other cell phones. I'm looking at it more like Sapprobaby looks at the current iPhone. "an iPod with a phone". Apple can still charge $200 for an 8GB iPhone Nano, which would probably be $50 from a US carrier. That consolidates the ubiquitous iPod with a ubiquitous simple use cell phone. Apple makes it's typical profit margin, cannibalizes it's own iPod Nano before other non-smartphones get the music player aspect of their cellphones working correctly, and get yet another customer using iTunes and potentially being a Mac or an iPhone 3G.
I don't think the release is imminent, but I think it is inevitable. With all the queues the carriers are taking from Apple on the UI side, the improvements of media software on cellphones and the cost of SDHCs being so cheap I can't see any other choice for Apple to maintain it's domination in the media player market.
What do you mean by "$50 from a US carrier?"
While the idea of people wanting to dial numbers and type text messages with a click-wheel or squircle pad instead of a far faster and intuitive physical keypad is a tad daft, it makes even less sense when you consider that competitors can go to $0. I guess I should have said near profitless "dumb" phone market. Apple would make very little and sell very few (again, because that market is over-saturated), especially with next Tuesday's iPod event, which will likely bring all prices down a notch to compete with the iPhone's new low price of entry.
Finally, how would releasing a click-wheel iPhone help maintain Apple's majority share of the "media player market?" Then it would be categorized as a...phone, not an iPod. That brings up another thing worth mentioning. While iPod sales only increased by something like 5% last year, which the uninformed tech media jumped on, it is still growing and more importantly, a little known device being categorized as a phone, but which is really a widescreen iPod as well is not being counted: the...iPhone!!
What does you mean by "$50 from a US carrier?"
The current 8GB Nano is $150, I tacked on $50 for the phone and software parts to make it $200. My comment about it being $50 from a US carrier was the subsidized price. I can see that a $50 8GB iPhone Nano with a basic call plan would be popular. It may even be free, but I think $150 for a subsidization of a simple handset for a 24 month contract is a minimum these days.
Apple doesn't allow AT&T to sell their iPhone for less than what they sell it for at their own retail stores.
That is because Apple, AT&T and Best Buy all sell them at the subsidized price. AT&T is paying Apple for the agreed upon difference, regardless. I know you know this, but I want to make sure we are on the same page.
While the idea of people wanting to dial numbers and type text messages with a click-wheel or squircle pad instead of a far faster and intuitive physical keypad is a tad daft,
My idea made no mention of removing the keypad or the clickwheel. It was to integrate them so it can one or the other, as needed. It's hard to explain, easier to show, but I'm daft at Photoshop.
it makes even less sense when you consider that competitors can go to $0. I guess I should have said near profitless "dumb" phone market. Apple would make very little and sell very few (again, because that market is over-saturated)
It's saturated with phones, but it's not saturated with phones that are quality PMPs. Eventually they will be better and Apple's iPods will have less reason to exist. You can only shrink a handheld device so far before it's time to consolidate into another device or consolidate another device into it. if you don't,s someone else will.
Finally, how would releasing a click-wheel iPhone help maintain Apple's majority share of the "media player market?" Then it would be categorized as a...phone, not an iPod.
As previously stated, you are better off cannibalizing your own products than letting your competitor do it. If Sony-Erricson releases a basic cellphone with a worthy PMP that can hold 8, 16 or 32GB in it's MicroSD slot then the chances of them then buying an iPod Nano go away. It's better for Apple to have their customer base make a lateral move from iPod to iPhone so long as they keep the profits themselves.
While iPod sales only increased by something like 5% last year, which the uninformed tech media jumped on, it is still growing and more importantly, a little known device being categorized as a phone, but which is really a widescreen iPod as well is not being counted: the...iPhone!! If iPhone sales numbers had been counted, the pundits would have had nothing to scare people about.
The anti-Apple media can talk about the iPod sales dropping all they want, but Apple's iPod percentages across the market are still high because their customers aren't foregoing the iPod for a competitor's device, but for another Apple device.
In the end, it's all about the profits which is why Apple made the iPhone to begin with. They knew it would cannibalize their iPod sales, but that doesn't matter if it makes them more money in the end. The current iPhone does not fit everyone's needs or wants so Apple will have to make an iPhone Nano for everyone else if they want to maintain their dominance in the actual PMP market.
That is because Apple, AT&T and Best Buy all sell them at the subsidized price. AT&T is paying Apple for the agreed upon difference, regardless. I know you know this, but I want to make sure we are on the same page.
Thanks for clarifying.
My idea made no mention of removing the keypad or the clickwheel. It was to integrate them so it can one or the other, as needed. It's hard to explain, easier to show, but I'm daft at Photoshop.
Ok, I missed that. Also, just saying, I wasn't calling you daft, but the idea.
It's saturated with phones, but it's not saturated with phones that are quality PMPs. Eventually they will be better and Apple's iPods will have less reason to exist. You can only shrink a handheld device so far before it's time to consolidate into another device or consolidate another device into it. if you don't,s someone else will.
Yeah, and that sounds just like the argument for the xMac and Apple trying to compete in the over-saturated ewaste market. Obviously the low-end cell phone market is more competitive, but I don't see Apple settling for "low-end," as least in the way you are envisioning it. A scaled down iPhone that matches the dimentions of the current iPod nano, with WiFi and a MultiTouch display for $100 sounds semi-appealing. Clicky keypads have never been ideal, other than for blind texting in highschool under the desk.
As previously stated, you are better off cannibalizing your own products than letting your competitor do it. If Sony-Erricson releases a basic cellphone with a worthy PMP that can hold 8, 16 or 32GB in it's MicroSD slot then the chances of them then buying an iPod Nano go away. It's better for Apple to have their customer base make a lateral move from iPod to iPhone so long as they keep the profits themselves.
To a certain extent, I agree with your first sentence. At the same time, while I believe Apple's future devices will include voice communication, I do question how that's achieved. If WiFi becomes widespread enough, hey, maybe we could have...free iChat voice and maybe even video chat. You'd still have the option of paying AT&T for when you can't find WiFi, but doing this would vastly reduce the power of these phone companies, which charge you left and right, outgoing calls, incoming calls, incoming texts, outgoing texts, running over your limit, etc. It's ridiculous! Then they have you sign anti-competitive contracts with charges for cancelation. Each of them now advertise their "unlimited" plans. Oh how nice...for the rich who can afford +$100 plans per month.
In the end, it's all about the profits which is why Apple made the iPhone to begin with. They knew it would cannibalize their iPod sales, but that doesn't matter if it makes them more money in the end. The current iPhone does not fit everyone's needs or wants so Apple will have to make an iPhone Nano for everyone else if they want to maintain their dominance in the actual PMP market.
I'm still confused. Are you saying an iPhone nano would be categorized as a phone or a PMP, or that smart phones are the new PMP?
I was basing my speculation largely on the following photo:
I figured the silver one posted earlier in this thread was yet another take on the same idea, but seeing the following picture from MacNN seems more realistic:
I still don't get how (if at all) they'll make the controls work when held horizontally. I wonder if the controls in that MacNN picture are actually a sticker Apple put on the click-wheel so it would be recognizable in stores, but then when you pull it out of the box, you take off the sticker and the controls are visible by backlighting as you suggested, solipsism? They would then reorient not only for video, but thanks to sensors inside that would allow for CoverFlow album browsing.
If Apple retires the iPod classic, I wonder if they'll update the "split-screen" UI or completely change it to something more akin to the iPod touch/iPhone UI like the mock-up below.
I'm still confused. Are you saying an iPhone nano would be categorized as a phone or a PMP, or that smart phones are the new PMP?
It would pushes into the phone category, but the sale would still be to Apple, so they wouldn't be loosing it to another cell manufacturer, or PMP makers. The PMP market still falls, but at least Apple's cellphone market would rise in direct relation to it.
Hmm, I may be changing my tune on the iPod nano.
I was basing my speculation largely on the following photo:
<image>
I figured the silver one posted earlier in this thread was yet another take on the same idea, but seeing the following picture from MacNN seems more realistic:
<mage>
I still don't get how (if at all) they'll make the controls work when held horizontally. I wonder if the controls in that MacNN picture are actually a sticker Apple put on the click-wheel so it would be recognizable in stores, but then when you pull it out of the box, you take off the sticker and the controls are visible by backlighting as you suggested, solipsism? They would then reorient not only for video, but thanks to sensors inside that would allow for CoverFlow album browsing.
If Apple retires the iPod classic, I wonder if they'll update the "split-screen" UI or completely change it to something more akin to the iPod touch/iPhone UI like the mock-up below.
Now that is what I'm thinking! That mockup look very slick, but I wonder if the buttons would have to be slickly larger because of the lighting technology needed to make the visual image.
As for an accelerometer, I think there are three possibilities.
1) None, it just changes to landscape mode when you play a video or when you choose Coverflow from the menu.
2) It has one which, like the Touch/iPhone will put the device into Coverflow when turned. How do these things affect battery life?
3) It has one, like in #2, but the accelerometer also is Nike+ built in. No need to buy the HW package for this anymore. Can the accelerometer work as well on the arm on in the pocket, as opposed to being on the shoe? How would Nike get their money? They had sold more than a million units as last year so I'd think that the sales would have had to drastically fallen or that they were high enough to warrant the automatic pairing of these touch devices into one.
Now that is what I'm thinking! That mockup look very slick, but I wonder if the buttons would have to be slickly larger because of the lighting technology needed to make the visual image.
As for an accelerometer, I think there are three possibilities.
1) None, it justjust changes to landscape mode when you play a video or when you choose Coverflow from the menu.
2) It has one which, like the Touch/iPhone will put the device into Coverflow when turned. How do these things affect battery life?
3) It has one, like in #2, but the accelerometer also is Nike_ built in. No need to buy the NW package for this anymore. Can the accelerometer work as well on the arm on in the pocket, as opposed to being on the shoe? How would Nike get their money. They had sold more than a million units as last year so I'd think that the sales would have had to drastically fallen or that they were high enough to warrant the automatic pairing of these touch devices into one.
Hmm, for some reason I didn't even consider your #1.
I liked that mock-up too. I doubt Apple would take the UI that far - there would be no easy way to click on the separate icons at the bottom - but something that fits in better with the Mobile OS X look would be more appealing and would better use the 4th gen nano's new screen (well, it's likely not really "new," just spun around 90˚).
I'm still surprised a tad by this move. I don't know, the 3rd gen nano's design seemed a bit odd at first, but I liked its kind of quirky squat style. That's why I feel like if Apple is going to simply flip the screen around, it's going to include an accelerometer and new UI. Otherwise it really wouldn't be an improvement over the 3rd gen model.
Now I'm really curious about the "one more thing" announcement. We know about the 4th gen nano now, the iPod touch is likely getting only a slight redesign (*crosses fingers that it doesn't adopt the iPhone 3G's plastic back*), all iPods will see lower prices and/or increased storage capacities, and having the iPhone 2.1 update ready for download would be great.
That leaves a potential iPod shuffle redesign (doubt it, but I'd like to see one with a dock connector, though that's largely unnecessary), iTunes 8.0 (doesn't seem likely or necessary; if it happens, i'm not expecting a major change in UI), and (hopefully) a discontinuation of the iPod classic (if not Tuesday, maybe at Macworld). None of that seems entirely exciting, so there's a chance of something really cool that nobody knows anything about.
That leaves a potential iPod shuffle redesign (doubt it, but I'd like to see one with a dock connector, though that's largely unnecessary),
I'm gonna have to say no on the dock connector. The 2G Shuffle is my favorite portal music player from anyone. I think I've sold quite a few by using my metallic orange one in the gym or the occasional store by simply wearing it. While it's a bit of drag to have a separate cable for my Shuffle, the charging and syncing over the headphone jack is an absolutely brilliant idea.
The 4GB model seems highly unlikely, despite the clamoring for it. My Apple Lossless songs average about 28MB for 4 minutes, which is the time Apple uses to determine how many songs will fit when measured against 128Kbps bitrate. While lossless size per second changes the content changes you could get about 150 songs on a 4GB Shuffle. I have about 30 for the gym. Also, as it stands now the Shuffle can't even play Apple Lossless. Why would they disallow this codec, and only this codec? It plays AIFF so I don't think it's a RAM issue. Doesn't lossless require more processing that the lossy codecs to play?
I might not be seeing the big picture, but the cost for the storage, the assumed profit margin, the fact that Apple only updated the Shuffle size after the sales drastically fell and the lack of screen all point to a colour change. The only other transformation that would be likely is to give it the tapering that is seen on that iPhone and suspected on the new Touch and Nano.
iTunes 8.0 (doesn't seem likely or necessary; if it happens, i'm not expecting a major change in UI)
DED clearly pointed out that the version numbering in relation to the features mean nothing. Apple could call it v8 and have hardly any features or call it v7.8 with a whole bunch of new features. There will be new version since there will be updated iPods, and I think the rumours of v8 are going to come true, but I have no idea what to expect from the new software. Any ideas?
and (hopefully) a discontinuation of the iPod classic (if not Tuesday, maybe at Macworld)
Like the Basque and their non-conforming language, I think there is a definite holdout of iPod users that want the excessive storage that the classic provides. If they killed it, I think these customers would go to another manufacturer for a HDD-based PMP. Until you can get a 128GB flash Touch I think Apple will have to offer this product.
As for changes, I see only a minor price reduction to be more completive. I see no evidence that the 2-platter 1.8" HDD has grown past 160GB, and since the 1-platter drive is at 120GB at a severally increased price (the Zune is going this route), it seems that keeping the current Classic line in place, but with a price reduction to better financial option for Apple than adding a 3rd model or dropping the 80GB for the 120GB model but with prices too close to each other.
None of that seems entirely exciting, so there's a chance of something really cool that nobody know anything about.
I don't think I'm expecting much, but a new product is one of them.
I'm gonna have to say no on the dock connector. The 2G Shuffle is my favorite portable music player from anyone. I think I've sold quite a few by using my metallic orange one in the gym or the occasional store by simply wearing it. While it's a bit of drag to have a separate cable for my Shuffle, the charging and syncing over the headphone jack is an absolutely brilliant idea.
Yeah, having different cables was the only complaint I had, but Apple's never used a dock connector for the shuffle, and I agree, it's headphone jack syncing is rather clever and fast.
The 4GB model seems highly unlikely, despite the clamoring for it. My Apple Lossless songs average about 28MB for 4 minutes, which is the time Apple uses to determine how many songs will fit when measured against 128Kbps bitrate. While lossless size per second changes the content changes you could get about 150 songs on a 4GB Shuffle. I have about 30 for the gym. Also, as it stands now the Shuffle can't even play Apple Lossless. Why would they disallow this codec, and only this codec? It plays AIFF so I don't think it's a RAM issue. Doesn't lossless require more processing that the lossy codecs to play?
I use 256kbps VBR AACs, so I'm not affected. I'm guessing you're right, some kind of hardware limitation, but it is strange that AIFFs can be played.
I might not be seeing the big picture, but the cost for the storage, the assumed profit margin, the fact that Apple only updated the Shuffle size after the sales drastically fell and the lack of screen all point to a colour change. The only other transformation that would be likely is to give it the tapering that is seen on that iPhone and suspected on the new Touch and Nano.
Agreed. Color change (maybe to match that orange 4th gen iPod nano) and perhaps some tapering. Talking strictly looks here. I have an idea that could make the shuffle more useful and unique, which I'll get to below.
DED clearly pointed out that the version numbering in relation to the features mean nothing. Apple could call it v8 and have hardly any features or call it v7.8 with a whole bunch of new features. There will be new version since there will be updated iPods, and I think the rumours of v8 are going to come true, but I have no idea what to expect from the new software. Any ideas?
Right, we're scrutinizing the same RDM article (note: my name's nat on there, if you hadn't already guessed
Like the Basque and their non-conforming language, I think there is a definite holdout of iPod users that want the excessive storage that the classic provides. If they killed it, I think these customers would go to another manufacturer for a HDD-based PMP. Until you can get a 128GB flash Touch I think Apple will have to offer this product.
Sure, and I consider myself one of those people...but like most of those people...I already have a large HDD-based iPod (80GB 5.5gen video). I believe the majority of those who need such a device already have one. If the iPod shuffle and the iPod touch are Apple's best selling iPods right now, with the nano not worthy of a mention in their latest sales notes, think of how low iPod classic sales are. It's the only iPod that really hasn't seen a real change in what, 3 or 4 years? The storage wars are largely over thanks to the iPod nano, iPhone and iPod touch, the latter two changing the major selling point from capacity to mobile web surfing, YouTube watching, CoverFlow browsing, photo viewing, email, and most recently, the App Store. Sure, we'll still see prices drop and/or storage capacity increase, but many people can't hope to fill up a 4GB nano, let alone a 32GB touch or 80GB classic.
I don't think I'm expecting much, but a new product is one of them.
Alright, now I'll give my guess for the closest thing to a new product I can come up with. I don't think this has been suggested before (though it does sound familiar). The iPod shuffle is a nice device for physical labor in contrast to the iPhone or iPod touch, with their large, scratch-able screens and their lack of tactile buttons for music control (other than the included iPhone headphones w/ 1 button remote). While Apple provides their iPod Radio Remote for use with iPod nano and iPod classic/video, it is incompatible with the iPhone or iPod touch, which need it most.
So why not replace the limited $50 iPod remote with the $50 third generation iPod shuffle, which would sport a short 3.5mm headphone cord on one end and a headphone jack on the other, turning it into an iPod/iPhone remote? It could still be used as a standalone iPod shuffle - they wouldn't take away its internal storage or anything - but this would resolve an issue some people have with the iPod touch (and to a lesser extent, the iPhone replacing their click-wheel iPod) and make the shuffle even more useful.
Or, If it were possible, maybe they could just send out a software update to existing shuffle owners and then sell a special Y adapter plug.
Do you watch videos in your pocket? No.
Wouldn't it make it easier to tell where the buttons were it the device was sitting in front of you?
I can do this on my phone when playing videos etc, I can still work out what and where the buttons are.