That's not the only way to look at it. If 1% of the potential buyers would have bought an iPod but didn't because of the lack of an FM tuner and that the add-on is too expensive, then putting it in at a few cents a player would pay back for itself vs. the lost sale in a hundred.
First off, I've got to say that the new shuffle is an amazing feat of engineering. I'm sure it will sell well. But getting rid of the old Shuffle rather than keeping it in the line up and removing its faults? Mistake.
They should have introduced the new iPod shuffle as an addition to the line up, and improved the old iPod shuffle thus:
1.) Include an FM radio
The reason that an FM radio is a not-much-wanted feature on an HDD iPod is that you are already carrying around your entire music collection, so why the hell would want to let some other idiot decide what music you're going to listen to, when you've got all the music in the world that you like right at your finger-tips?
The shuffle, on the other hand, has lower capacity and has a very different demographic of users. A much higher proportion of the shuffle's target market are teenagers, who don't have extensive music collections and like to listen to the radio to discover new artists, or when they've exhausted all the music on their low-capacity player.
2.) Available in colours.
3.) Put a screen on it.
Apple's contention that the old shuffle was too small for a screen is utter rubbish. All the shuffle's size-equals have screens.
4.) one-colour 256 MB version for $39
This is something Apple's never really seemed to catch on to. This end of the market is very price-sensitive, and capturing young people with not much money to spend now, will be great in the future when said young people are older, have greater spending power, and want an iPod and nothing else because that's what all their music is compatible with.
Mean too plenty of people like my girlfriend prefer the nano type form factor over the full size form factor. Same with a lot of my friends. Personally I'd take the video ipod, but each his own, both will sell like crazy.
I agree, they both fill different desires. I personally like the added durability, low weight and compact size of the nano. The capacity and video of the larger unit can be compelling though.
I personally don't need to have all my music with me all the time. I have a smart playlist that rotates fresh songs into my nano after a song has been played, so no song is left behind, all songs will get their time.
First off, I've got to say that the new shuffle is an amazing feat of engineering. I'm sure it will sell well. But getting rid of the old Shuffle rather than keeping it in the line up and removing its faults? Mistake.
They should have introduced the new iPod shuffle as an addition to the line up, and improved the old iPod shuffle thus:
1.) Include an FM radio
The reason that an FM radio is a not-much-wanted feature on an HDD iPod is that you are already carrying around your entire music collection, so why the hell would want to let some other idiot decide what music you're going to listen to, when you've got all the music in the world that you like right at your finger-tips?
The shuffle, on the other hand, has lower capacity and has a very different demographic of users. A much higher proportion of the shuffle's target market are teenagers, who don't have extensive music collections and like to listen to the radio to discover new artists, or when they've exhausted all the music on their low-capacity player.
2.) Available in colours.
3.) Put a screen on it.
Apple's contention that the old shuffle was too small for a screen is utter rubbish. All the shuffle's size-equals have screens.
4.) one-colour 256 MB version for $39
This is something Apple's never really seemed to catch on to. This end of the market is very price-sensitive, and capturing young people with not much money to spend now, will be great in the future when said young people are older, have greater spending power, and want an iPod and nothing else because that's what all their music is compatible with.
Wow, I aboslutely agree.
At the very least they cold have kept the old shuffle in at 512mb and made it 49. I will miss the thumb drive capability, I might just get one before they're gone.
Nano can do 24hrs give or take, and won't suffer the "clicking" problem on most (yes still under warranty!)ipods.
video ipod has to do a lot more work, while able to put out more stuff.
different strokes for different folks.
The nano(before the new case) while scratchable, could avoid death like daredevil.
It can die from faulty problems, but from external problems, it was super tough. Look at Ars technica's review on the nano duriblity.
They ran a car over it, twice!, and it still refused to die.
The video ipod is no slouch, it has shock locking technology (drop your computer while the HDD is spinning vs dropping your ipod-guess which one dies). You know it's not cheap to do that.
[BEGIN EXTREME GLOATING] Well bitches, guess who was right on the money with the mockups... ME..!!!! You may remember my mockups from *quite a while ago* .... wOOOOOT !!!!111!!!one!!one!!! .... muah ah haah a hah ah ah ah haah h aah h ahhaah h h aha ha ha h a ! YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
i've been waiting for a higher capacity nano for a while, its finally time to upgrade my mini 4gb to a sexy metal clad black 8gb just ordered, estimated delivery is 22 sept. i like the new itunes album display thingie, its cool, would look good on top of a jukebox ? and for the first time i'm even tempted to also buy the shuffle, it's small enough to handle any workout
It is thicker than what you predicted, but it is thinner than the previous nano, which they said was .27, though only marginally so. The difference is about the thickness of three sheets of standard copier paper.
Cool. I am not interested in the new Nanos though, I already have my nice rock-solid super scratch-proof 1st Gen classic aluminium Silver iPod mini. Battery has gone totally off so I can't play music but it's nice as a 4GB FW hard drive. And it looks cool. And it's the original father/mother of these new iPod nanos.
FM tuners need external antennas, and the vast majority of portable FM tuners use the headphone cable as an antenna. Apple could put the chip in the iPod and use the headphone cable as an antenna. The reason they have an external solution is that most people don't want an FM radio so why add the expense to the standard iPod when you can charge extra for the feature for the few who want it?
+1 I don't care about stupid fm radio since all it is is a commercial festival. You hear more car ads than music and the music is the same crap over and over. No thanks. Keep the ipods smaller and radio free.
Is there a capacity-based copyright levy for music players in the UK?
I think both situations are odd. I'm surprised that the prices of any model line overlap in any region. At least in the last five years or so, Apple didn't let product lines overlap in price that I remember.
Miniaturization always costs more. The memory modules are expensive.
how expensive is an FM tunner, if they chose to include inside very ipod? just curious. shitty players like the zen micro have it. it doesn't add too much bulk, but yeah they are smart in selling it separately. \
First of all, almost nobody cares. Jobs answered that question over a year ago. He said that such a small number of customers wanted one, that it didn't pay to put it in.
He then said that once a feature is in, it's impossible to remove later.
One problem is that most FM tuners in mp3 players are simply bad. If Apple put one in and it was bad, that would be a problem. If they made sure it was good, it might cost too much. even if it cost Apple $5 in parts and design, it would add $15 to $20 to the selling price. Too much for something few care about.
[BEGIN EXTREME GLOATING] Well bitches, guess who was right on the money with the mockups... ME..!!!! You may remember my mockups from *quite a while ago* .... wOOOOOT !!!!111!!!one!!one!!! .... muah ah haah a hah ah ah ah haah h aah h ahhaah h h aha ha ha h a ! YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Comments
That's not the only way to look at it. If 1% of the potential buyers would have bought an iPod but didn't because of the lack of an FM tuner and that the add-on is too expensive, then putting it in at a few cents a player would pay back for itself vs. the lost sale in a hundred.
Touché.
What do you mean? Elaborate.
O.K.
First off, I've got to say that the new shuffle is an amazing feat of engineering. I'm sure it will sell well. But getting rid of the old Shuffle rather than keeping it in the line up and removing its faults? Mistake.
They should have introduced the new iPod shuffle as an addition to the line up, and improved the old iPod shuffle thus:
1.) Include an FM radio
The reason that an FM radio is a not-much-wanted feature on an HDD iPod is that you are already carrying around your entire music collection, so why the hell would want to let some other idiot decide what music you're going to listen to, when you've got all the music in the world that you like right at your finger-tips?
The shuffle, on the other hand, has lower capacity and has a very different demographic of users. A much higher proportion of the shuffle's target market are teenagers, who don't have extensive music collections and like to listen to the radio to discover new artists, or when they've exhausted all the music on their low-capacity player.
2.) Available in colours.
3.) Put a screen on it.
Apple's contention that the old shuffle was too small for a screen is utter rubbish. All the shuffle's size-equals have screens.
4.) one-colour 256 MB version for $39
This is something Apple's never really seemed to catch on to. This end of the market is very price-sensitive, and capturing young people with not much money to spend now, will be great in the future when said young people are older, have greater spending power, and want an iPod and nothing else because that's what all their music is compatible with.
Mean too plenty of people like my girlfriend prefer the nano type form factor over the full size form factor. Same with a lot of my friends. Personally I'd take the video ipod, but each his own, both will sell like crazy.
I agree, they both fill different desires. I personally like the added durability, low weight and compact size of the nano. The capacity and video of the larger unit can be compelling though.
I personally don't need to have all my music with me all the time. I have a smart playlist that rotates fresh songs into my nano after a song has been played, so no song is left behind, all songs will get their time.
O.K.
First off, I've got to say that the new shuffle is an amazing feat of engineering. I'm sure it will sell well. But getting rid of the old Shuffle rather than keeping it in the line up and removing its faults? Mistake.
They should have introduced the new iPod shuffle as an addition to the line up, and improved the old iPod shuffle thus:
1.) Include an FM radio
The reason that an FM radio is a not-much-wanted feature on an HDD iPod is that you are already carrying around your entire music collection, so why the hell would want to let some other idiot decide what music you're going to listen to, when you've got all the music in the world that you like right at your finger-tips?
The shuffle, on the other hand, has lower capacity and has a very different demographic of users. A much higher proportion of the shuffle's target market are teenagers, who don't have extensive music collections and like to listen to the radio to discover new artists, or when they've exhausted all the music on their low-capacity player.
2.) Available in colours.
3.) Put a screen on it.
Apple's contention that the old shuffle was too small for a screen is utter rubbish. All the shuffle's size-equals have screens.
4.) one-colour 256 MB version for $39
This is something Apple's never really seemed to catch on to. This end of the market is very price-sensitive, and capturing young people with not much money to spend now, will be great in the future when said young people are older, have greater spending power, and want an iPod and nothing else because that's what all their music is compatible with.
Wow, I aboslutely agree.
At the very least they cold have kept the old shuffle in at 512mb and made it 49. I will miss the thumb drive capability, I might just get one before they're gone.
Nano can do 24hrs give or take, and won't suffer the "clicking" problem on most (yes still under warranty!)ipods.
video ipod has to do a lot more work, while able to put out more stuff.
different strokes for different folks.
The nano(before the new case) while scratchable, could avoid death like daredevil.
It can die from faulty problems, but from external problems, it was super tough. Look at Ars technica's review on the nano duriblity.
They ran a car over it, twice!, and it still refused to die.
The video ipod is no slouch, it has shock locking technology (drop your computer while the HDD is spinning vs dropping your ipod-guess which one dies). You know it's not cheap to do that.
But HDD can't be flash there.
ur the man Jobs!
you were right but still .25" thin it is not. jobs claims it's thinner!
It's fatter:
Size and weight
* Height: 3.5 inches
* Width: 1.6 inches
* Depth: 0.26 inch
* Weight: 1.41 ounces
It's fatter:
Size and weight
* Height: 3.5 inches
* Width: 1.6 inches
* Depth: 0.26 inch
* Weight: 1.41 ounces
It is thicker than what you predicted, but it is thinner than the previous nano, which they said was .27, though only marginally so. The difference is about the thickness of three sheets of standard copier paper.
FM tuners need external antennas, and the vast majority of portable FM tuners use the headphone cable as an antenna. Apple could put the chip in the iPod and use the headphone cable as an antenna. The reason they have an external solution is that most people don't want an FM radio so why add the expense to the standard iPod when you can charge extra for the feature for the few who want it?
+1 I don't care about stupid fm radio since all it is is a commercial festival. You hear more car ads than music and the music is the same crap over and over. No thanks. Keep the ipods smaller and radio free.
Is there a capacity-based copyright levy for music players in the UK?
I think both situations are odd. I'm surprised that the prices of any model line overlap in any region. At least in the last five years or so, Apple didn't let product lines overlap in price that I remember.
Miniaturization always costs more. The memory modules are expensive.
how expensive is an FM tunner, if they chose to include inside very ipod? just curious. shitty players like the zen micro have it. it doesn't add too much bulk, but yeah they are smart in selling it separately.
First of all, almost nobody cares. Jobs answered that question over a year ago. He said that such a small number of customers wanted one, that it didn't pay to put it in.
He then said that once a feature is in, it's impossible to remove later.
One problem is that most FM tuners in mp3 players are simply bad. If Apple put one in and it was bad, that would be a problem. If they made sure it was good, it might cost too much. even if it cost Apple $5 in parts and design, it would add $15 to $20 to the selling price. Too much for something few care about.
Look familiar now? [suuper evil laughter]ahah hah a ha hha ha h aha ha ha h ha[/super evil laughter]
You da man!
[BEGIN EXTREME GLOATING] Well bitches, guess who was right on the money with the mockups... ME..!!!! You may remember my mockups from *quite a while ago* .... wOOOOOT !!!!111!!!one!!one!!! .... muah ah haah a hah ah ah ah haah h aah h ahhaah h h aha ha ha h a ! YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Hey Sunilraman, is that your thumb in the mock up