PDA

View Full Version : I don't understand the new iPod lineup...




rtdgoldfish
Sep 6, 2007, 02:21 PM
So I've been looking at the new iPod lineup announced yesterday and I don't understand Apple's reasoning for most of it. Separately, each model seems alright but they don't fit together in a product line at all. Here's what I don't get:

Shuffle: Actually, this one still makes sense. Same price, same storage. Nothing was wrong with it in the first place so why change it?? New colors, whatever, don't care either way.

Nano: New shape and size don't really bother me at all. It can play video, great. My problem is this, for an extra $50, you can upgrade from 8 gigs to 80 gigs on the classic. Both models can play video but who wants to watch video on a 2" screen?? Again, by itself the Nano is a great device. But compared to the Classic, I don't understand why you would bother buying the 8 gig model (which it appears Apple thinks will be the popular one based on its choice of colors).

Classic: New HD sizes are great. 80 gigs for $249 blows any of the competition out of the water. 160 gigs is the largest capacity of any player out there. Again, not really much of a complaint here.

Touch: This has got to be the dumbest idea Apple could have ever thought up. Lets make the best iPod ever have the worst storage capacity ever. Come on, 8 or 16 gigs?? The screen is great for playing video but how much can you fit with that little storage?? And the price is crazy as well. I'd much rather get an 80 gig Classic than an 8 gig Touch for more money. And if you are going to bother getting the 16 gig, why not just get the iPhone for the same price?? And please don't say because of the AT&T contract, most of us have cell phone bills anyway so I don't really see that as an issue.

I don't understand why they didn't put a hard drive in the Touch. I would have gladly bought a Touch if it had an 80 gig HD. Heck, even a 30 gig HD would have been nice. If you are going to say you only want it for an internet device, thats fine but I'll keep my iPhone that can get online wherever I am thanks to the EDGE connection.

The way I see it, this would be my ideal iPod lineup:

Shuffle 1 gig, $79
Nano 8 gig, $149 (available in all colors)
Classic 80 gig, $249
Classic 160 gig, $349
Touch 30 gig, $299
Touch 80 gig, $399
iPhone 8 gig, $399

Anyways, just my rant. Feel free to flame away, rip it apart, whatever. I was just wondering if anyone out there had similar thoughts.



imac/cheese
Sep 6, 2007, 02:26 PM
From what I have seen on the forums there are a lot of people that like each option and a lot of people that dislike certain options. To me that means that Apple has just provided us a lot of options from which to choose.

greg555
Sep 6, 2007, 02:29 PM
I won't try to answer all your questions but the nano exists for people who want a small device for their music (and now videos). So I don't think it really competes against the Classic, rather against other brands' small products that can now do video and that have a larger screen than the old nano.

So the ability to carry a lot of music and a few videos in a very small package* with a decent screen is a strong selling point.

*something you can wear around you neck

Regarding the 4 versus 8 GB nanos, I think they exist for the same reason as the 2 and 4 GB ones before: the smaller one hits a pricepoint to make people consider the iPod, then the extra memory and colour selection causes people to upsell themselves into a more expensive product. So Apple makes more money by having a single 4GB product and a wider 8GB product line.

Greg

Nano: New shape and size don't really bother me at all. It can play video, great. My problem is this, for an extra $50, you can upgrade from 8 gigs to 80 gigs on the classic. Both models can play video but who wants to watch video on a 2" screen?? Again, by itself the Nano is a great device. But compared to the Classic, I don't understand why you would bother buying the 8 gig model (which it appears Apple thinks will be the popular one based on its choice of colors).

swwack91
Sep 6, 2007, 02:30 PM
i don't understand why they couldn't just take the iPod touch and throw a regular hard drive in it. i don't care if it's super thin.

classic 80GB - $249
touch 80GB - $299 (or even $349)

...that makes much more sense

greg555
Sep 6, 2007, 02:31 PM
I'm a bit surprised by the Classic. I expected the touch to come in a flash version (thin) and a fatter hard drive based version. If it had then there would have been no need for the Classic.

I guess Steve didn't want to sully the thin sexy iPod touch by making it thick.

Greg

wwooden
Sep 6, 2007, 02:35 PM
I agree completely with your reasoning. My only comment is that the same thing was pretty much said when the last Nano's came out. Everyone said "why would you get a Nano at $249 when you get a 30gig Video for the same price?". Well, people are willing to pay premium for size.

Your logic about the iPod Touch is exactly what I am thinking. I am actually considering just getting an iPhone and doing the thing where you cancel the account so it is just like the iPod Touch. I like many things about the iPhone better, even without the phone part. I like that it has bluetooth, a camera, a speaker, a dedicated email app, google maps, stocks, weather, and wall charger included. I figure I can get a refurb 8gig iPhone for $50 more than the iPod Touch, start a pay-as-go contract then cancel and I have a much better iPod Touch-like device.

greg555
Sep 6, 2007, 02:43 PM
There were also lots of comments like that when the iPod mini came out. "Why buy the 4GB mini when for $XX more you can have 20GB (or whatever it was at the time)". It's like deja vu all over again :-)

I agree that people are willing to pay a premium for small size. The extra ruggedness from not having a hard drive is also a feature.

Greg

I agree completely with your reasoning. My only comment is that the same thing was pretty much said when the last Nano's came out. Everyone said "why would you get a Nano at $249 when you get a 30gig Video for the same price?". Well, people are willing to pay premium for size.

milo
Sep 6, 2007, 02:43 PM
Nano has always outsold the big ipods.

The situation was even more extreme before, the top nano was the same price as the 30G ipod so for the same price you got almost four times the storage plus video playback.

Now if anything the nano is more competitive since it has video playback.

I think all the ipods will sell well, but nanos will be the hottest model as before. They'll sell like crazy. I also expect the touch to sell very well and iPhone sales to go way up with the new pricing. The classic will probably be the lowest seller, there aren't that many people who want to spend that much on just a media player, and not that many that need that much space.

iToaster
Sep 6, 2007, 02:56 PM
You honestly don't know why there is no HD in the touch? Hard drive are slow in that size, as well as power consuming. So the touch would be slow and have a battery life of 3 Hrs with a HD. It's an iPhone for those who can't get an iPhone. The Nano is cool because it's really tiny and now plays video, so it appeals to a much better market. The iPod classic is fine as it is, 160 Gb is insane but awesome... eat it Zune.

showtime
Sep 6, 2007, 03:02 PM
Nano: New shape and size don't really bother me at all. It can play video, great. My problem is this, for an extra $50, you can upgrade from 8 gigs to 80 gigs on the classic. Both models can play video but who wants to watch video on a 2" screen?? Again, by itself the Nano is a great device. But compared to the Classic, I don't understand why you would bother buying the 8 gig model (which it appears Apple thinks will be the popular one based on its choice of colors).

Not everybody needs their whole itunes library with them at all times. A lot of those who buy the nano buy it for the size. A nano is a lot easier to carry around than a classic and is light in the pocket and for a lot of people is more than enough to last them through their train ride or their workout or a day in school. I see most average users being interested in the nano

The classic on the other hand is for those who absolutely must have their whole itunes library with them at all times. No average user is going to go through tens of thousands of songs on their ipod. I see those who are really really into their music purchasing these over a nano simply because of storage space.

Touch: This has got to be the dumbest idea Apple could have ever thought up. Lets make the best iPod ever have the worst storage capacity ever. Come on, 8 or 16 gigs?? The screen is great for playing video but how much can you fit with that little storage?? And the price is crazy as well. I'd much rather get an 80 gig Classic than an 8 gig Touch for more money. And if you are going to bother getting the 16 gig, why not just get the iPhone for the same price?? And please don't say because of the AT&T contract, most of us have cell phone bills anyway so I don't really see that as an issue.

On the contrary I think the touch is an amazing device, it just doesn't seem practical to a lot of people, especially not iphone owners. The touch shouldn't be just as an ipod 80 or 90 percent of the time. It's too expensive and unpractical to be used as so. The main feature of the touch is not the ipod but the wifi. If you were just going to use it as an ipod then you should look to one of the many other choices apple has laid out for you. The touch is the best idea apple came up with for college students like me. One thing all college students have in common: we always have our ipods on us and we're always surrounded by wifi. Now we can browse the internet on your ipod anywhere we go (around campus that is).

why not just get the iPhone for the same price?? And please don't say because of the AT&T contract, most of us have cell phone bills anyway so I don't really see that as an issue.

The argument for not getting the iPhone is because the AT&T contract. It's true we all have cell phone bills anyways but not $100 phone bills. A regular family plan will come out to around $100. That's 3 or 4 lines instead of 1. Plus there are those who are still tied down to old contracts that don't end any time soon and there are those who rather sign up for a one year contract and get new phones every year. Now with the ipod touch they get an iphone without the phone and a hefty bill for just one person. They just sacrifice one device for two.

rtdgoldfish
Sep 6, 2007, 03:07 PM
I agree that people are willing to pay a premium for small size. The extra ruggedness from not having a hard drive is also a feature.


That makes sense, people who are using the Nano for exercise, jogging etc will still go for the Nano since it has no moving parts.

The situation was even more extreme before, the top nano was the same price as the 30G ipod so for the same price you got almost four times the storage plus video playback.

Now if anything the nano is more competitive since it has video playback.


I guess more people will buy the Nano since it has video. I just don't understand why, if you are buying an iPod for video, you would buy the Nano instead of the Classic. That .5" of screen size really makes a difference with such a small device.

It's an iPhone for those who can't get an iPhone.

The price is almost the same now. $299 8 gig Touch, $399 8 gig iPhone. I'd much rather spend the extra $100 and get bluetooth, a camera, EDGE connectivity, etc. And again, I'd say that most people already have a cell phone bill so maybe you are looking at the extra $20 a month if you don't already have a data/text plan. Thats about the only drawback the iPhone has IMHO.

Now with the ipod touch they get an iphone without the phone and a hefty bill for just one person. They just sacrifice one device for two.

But Apple's whole thing with the iPhone was you are replacing all of your mobile devices with one. Internet communicator, iPod and phone. The Touch just seems to be going back on that idea.

magicjames92
Sep 6, 2007, 03:13 PM
im a kid i cant pay a cell phone bill.
i dont need 80gigs. 18 is plenty. Really. 4 gigs music the rest videos is fine.

tkidBOSTON
Sep 6, 2007, 03:22 PM
I forget where I read it but somewhere Steve said (paraphrased, obv, since I can't find that article) that sure the product lines will probably cannibalize each other, but he rather be cannibalizing his own sales than have some other company eating into his profits.

What it boils down to is theres something for everyone and Apple will sell a ton of iPods.

sparks9
Sep 6, 2007, 03:37 PM
Everytime Apple updates its iPod lineup someone will post a thread like this. Same thing happened when the nano was first released. "Why would people buy a 8 GB nano when you can get a 80 GB iPod for 50 dollars more?".

Maybe because of size and weight and durability of the nano? The new nano will be the best selling iPod as the old nano was before...

rbroady
Sep 6, 2007, 03:59 PM
I for one am buying a touch

Im a college student, still getting my cell phone service paid by my parents under tmobile, so why would i change it?

I go to school in the city(NYC), so the wi-fi and safari is great.

I also dont mind changing up my music every day or every other day. I actually prefer it.

maybe, just maybe, if resellers are selling unlocked iphones with the new pricetag and the extra service charges added on....that may be my choice.

the only thing i have agianst that is i dont want to carry around an iphone 24-7 becouse my cell phones always get beat up.

aethelbert
Sep 6, 2007, 04:10 PM
I fully agree with the OP that the product line is strange and that there should be a hard disk on the touch. But it will still be a good internet device and I believe that is what will make it sell.

Personally, I am looking at the 8GB touch, but I don't have that much music and I want the wifi. But I completely understand why someone would be upset that they sacrifice the great features of the touch for the high capacities of the classic.

swwack91
Sep 6, 2007, 04:22 PM
well to play devil's advocate and support the Classic -

I've been saying for a while that I'd love a video iPod in the aluminum material that made up the mini's and 2G Nanos.

Well, finally, we got that. (i'm like bordering on OCD and the no scratch surface is GREAT! lol)

I'd love a touch, because I only do have 4GB of music - but I have so much video that it's ridiculous. I currently have a 2GB 1G nano and I HATE switching out music.

The thought of being able to have ALL of my music and ALL of my video at all times is great.

swwack91
Sep 6, 2007, 04:23 PM
...but I have to say...

this thread is starting to make me reconsider and buy a Touch.

the only thing is I'd really need the 16GB, not 8...

and I don't feel like paying $399 when I start to think about the $/GB.

It's a gross ratio compared to the Classic.

rtdgoldfish
Sep 6, 2007, 04:31 PM
Im a college student, still getting my cell phone service paid by my parents under tmobile, so why would i change it?

I go to school in the city(NYC), so the wi-fi and safari is great.


If I was in NYC, I would love to have a Touch. I would imagine there is free WiFi almost wherever you go. But for me, I'm in Tallahassee, FL and there isn't much in the way of free WiFi after you leave Florida State's campus so EDGE on the iPhone is the way to go.

I guess the moral of the story is almost everyone will find an iPod for their liking in the new lineup. Except for the person who wants a Touch with a bigger capacity. I guess that is my #1 complaint at this point.

Scarlet Fever
Sep 6, 2007, 04:39 PM
Nano: New shape and size don't really bother me at all. It can play video, great. My problem is this, for an extra $50, you can upgrade from 8 gigs to 80 gigs on the classic. Both models can play video but who wants to watch video on a 2" screen?? Again, by itself the Nano is a great device. But compared to the Classic, I don't understand why you would bother buying the 8 gig model (which it appears Apple thinks will be the popular one based on its choice of colors).
Some people don't need 80GB of storage. Some people want to use their iPod while exercising. Some people don't want to carry their life around with them. Some people can't afford the extra $50 US. Some people just want colours.

Previously, the 8GB model was the same price as the 30GB model. Yet people still got the 8GB Nano.

Classic: New HD sizes are great. 80 gigs for $249 blows any of the competition out of the water. 160 gigs is the largest capacity of any player out there. Again, not really much of a complaint here.
While the iPod was awesome before, there were other players with the same capacity for the same prices (ie Zune). Now there is no competition. Good move on Apple's part. They'll sell these by the millions.

Touch: This has got to be the dumbest idea Apple could have ever thought up. Lets make the best iPod ever have the worst storage capacity ever. Come on, 8 or 16 gigs?? The screen is great for playing video but how much can you fit with that little storage?? TV shows for me take up between 150-200MB per hour each. Double that, because the res on the iPod Touch is about twice that of my 5.0 Gen iPod, so on a 16GB iPod, you could store 80 TV shows on there. Thats enough for a few seasons, don't you think?

And the price is crazy as well. I'd much rather get an 80 gig Classic than an 8 gig Touch for more money. And if you are going to bother getting the 16 gig, why not just get the iPhone for the same price?? And please don't say because of the AT&T contract, most of us have cell phone bills anyway so I don't really see that as an issue.
The thing is, the iPhone is only available in the US. The iPod Touch is available almost globally. For the rest of the world, the iPod Touch is the closest we're going to get to having an iPhone for a long time

I don't understand why they didn't put a hard drive in the Touch. I would have gladly bought a Touch if it had an 80 gig HD. Heck, even a 30 gig HD would have been nice. If you are going to say you only want it for an internet device, thats fine but I'll keep my iPhone that can get online wherever I am thanks to the EDGE connection.

There must be some technological reason why they didn't put a HDD in. Flash is a fair bit faster than HDD, so the interface may have lagged with a HDD. And it seems Apple are pushing the shift towards flash memory.

suneohair
Sep 6, 2007, 04:49 PM
Don't know if someone said it, but I imagine there is some kind of issue with HDDs and the Touch panel being together in the same device.

swwack91
Sep 6, 2007, 05:14 PM
maybe heat or vibration from the HDD screws with multitouch?:confused:

PygmySurfer
Sep 6, 2007, 05:18 PM
...but I have to say...

this thread is starting to make me reconsider and buy a Touch.

the only thing is I'd really need the 16GB, not 8...

and I don't feel like paying $399 when I start to think about the $/GB.

It's a gross ratio compared to the Classic.

Compare $/screen size ratio :P

JesterJJZ
Sep 6, 2007, 05:39 PM
From what I have seen on the forums there are a lot of people that like each option and a lot of people that dislike certain options. To me that means that Apple has just provided us a lot of options from which to choose. Every option but not the best in one device. Apple can't claim their "best" iPod now until they have a Touch model with the capacity of the Classic. End of story.

maccam
Sep 6, 2007, 05:49 PM
Nano: New shape and size don't really bother me at all. It can play video, great. My problem is this, for an extra $50, you can upgrade from 8 gigs to 80 gigs on the classic. Both models can play video but who wants to watch video on a 2" screen?? Again, by itself the Nano is a great device. But compared to the Classic, I don't understand why you would bother buying the 8 gig model (which it appears Apple thinks will be the popular one based on its choice of colors).

Nonsense... I bought a 3g 8gb Nano because it's SO much smaller then the classic, and the screen size is the same as the iPod classic. And last, $50 is $50.

JesterJJZ
Sep 6, 2007, 05:55 PM
Nonsense... I bought a 3g 8gb Nano because it's SO much smaller then the classic, and the screen size is the same as the iPod classic. And last, $50 is $50.

No...the classic has a 2.5in screen, nano is onlu 2in. You're talking about pixel count which is a completely different thing.

maccam
Sep 6, 2007, 06:12 PM
No...the classic has a 2.5in screen, nano is onlu 2in. You're talking about pixel count which is a completely different thing.

Jobs said it looks the same screen size when your watching a video!

rtdgoldfish
Sep 6, 2007, 06:19 PM
Jobs said it looks the same screen size when your watching a video!

It might look like that since it has the same number of pixels but the Nano has a 2" screen while the Classic has a 2.5" screen. For me, thats a bit too small to (enjoyably) watch video on.

maccam
Sep 6, 2007, 08:30 PM
Well if you think that a 1/2" (technically not) will bug you... Buy the classic.

SkyBell
Sep 6, 2007, 08:49 PM
Hell, I think the 4 GB for $150 is an excellent deal. I just wish it came in all the colors. :(