Clarification: Flash iPod 'Rumor'

[MacRumors]

AudioRevoluation posted (http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/1203/25.apple_ipod.html) some confirmation of low-end iPods. They also mention the possibility of Flash-based iPods, but appear to simply be regurgitating information from a Reuters article in which an analyst was speculating that the new iPods may be Flash-based.

As a result, this report does not appear to provide any additional information (beyond simple confirmation):
"Odds are it's a flash-memory-based player, something to position Apple against the low-cost offerings from Creative and Rio," said Rob Enderle, principal of market search firm the Enderle Group

[x86isslow]

hmm. might be able to snag one if they are cheap enough. cant really fill the 10Gb'er, nor can i afford it.. maybe a 5 Gb'er ~150?

[Doctor Q]

I've heard the pro-flash and anti-flash arguments, and now I'm ready to stop reading rumors and have Steve tell us what they've actually done. Just twiddling my thumbs waiting for the keynote speech.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by Macrumors
AudioRevoluation posted (http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/1203/25.apple_ipod.html) some confirmation of low-end iPods. They also mention the possibility of Flash-based iPods, but appear to simply be regurgitating information from a Reuters article in which an analyst was speculating that the new iPods may be Flash-based.

As a result, this report does not appear to provide any additional information (beyond simple confirmation): I can't say I'm terribly thrilled at the idea of a 512MB iPod. You'll constantly have to make playlists for your iPod which could get annoying. So much for hassle-free syncing of your music collection.

[macFanDave]

when the source is Rob Enderle. He's an idiot (and a Microsoft-sponsored FUDster.)

I have to give him credit for coming up with a memory that is slightly plausible (although I doubt it is true). It would be more in the nature of Rob Enderle to say that there is going to be a 2GB iPod with the data stored on punch cards!

[Brandon Sharitt]

Probably just a bunch of crap. For Apple to back track and make a flash based iPod would be like them redesigning the iMac with a floppy drive or releasing a new line or CRT displays.

[Grimace]

Flash definitely has its benefits. The could have an entirely new (innovative?) form-factor with flash - we'll see what MWSF has to offer...

[Doctor Q]

Originally posted by dongmin
I can't say I'm terribly thrilled at the idea of a 512MB iPod. You'll constantly have to make playlists for your iPod which could get annoying. So much for hassle-free syncing of your music collection.Using a cheaper iPod will require living with less storage capacity, no matter what the technology. So it'll require a mindset that says you pick a collection that you want to listen to today, and replace it with another subset of your music when you change your mind tomorrow. Some people have small music collections, but it's unlikely to stay small forever. Something's gotta give, and it's the idea that you can carry all your music around with you. For that luxury, you have to pay more.

[lind0834]

A 512M MP3 Player wouldn't be worth my while unless it's really really ground breaking.
I wanted something to play MP3s, a couple of years ago, and picked up a CD-RW MP3 player. It plays any MP3, I've thrown at it, and I can replace or recharge my AA's whenever I want to. It's not the best piece of equipment ever, but for what I payed ($30), it's great. As soon as Apple can makes something that will hold a Gig (or more) data of music for $100, I'll place my order.

[mac15]

I think they'd be 1GB and up, I do stuff for iRiver and 1GB flash drives are incredible expensive. I don't think there would be value in one compared to a HD based player.

[revenuee]

Don't take this the wrong way


but you guys complaining about the 512 meaning organizing playlists and it being a hassle are forgetting one thing.

Not everyone has enough music to fill a 10 gig iPod

heck i have 1 gig on my 20 gig iPod

some people might want to have a few play lists and put them on in the morning before they go because that is the mood they feel like that day

some people might want to really think about exactly what songs they want to put on their collection

believe it or not ... apple isn't making every product for you, and just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean it's not a good one

[redAPPLE]

if i were Apple, i would not call it an "iPod" if it is not hdu-based.

[tubedogg]

Good idea, confuse the public and splinter your customer base by calling the two players different things. They'd both end up being called iPods by most consumers anyway, and there really is no benefit I can see to naming the "mini 'Pod" anything but iPod.

[Stella]

Here Here, well said.

The price of a flash memory iPod better be priced competitively with existing Flash MP3 players...


Originally posted by revenuee
Don't take this the wrong way


but you guys complaining about the 512 meaning organizing playlists and it being a hassle are forgetting one thing.

Not everyone has enough music to fill a 10 gig iPod

heck i have 1 gig on my 20 gig iPod

some people might want to have a few play lists and put them on in the morning before they go because that is the mood they feel like that day

some people might want to really think about exactly what songs they want to put on their collection

believe it or not ... apple isn't making every product for you, and just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean it's not a good one

[aldo]

Apple won't use flash. Even 512mb is too expensive for a $100/$150 device, if you include all the buttons, the case, the DSPs and also the packaging etc...

I still think Apple will ask Toshiba or someone to make a big run of small 2/4gb hard drives for a low price. These things are gonna sell like hotcakes and an order for 1million is enough to warrant a manufacturing them again.

[msbsound]

The fact that you can't exercise heavily with current ipods may make some folks pick up a flash based ipod.(speaking for myself of course)

I love my ipod, but having to reset it every time I run gets annoying. True, I have a lot of other options as far as flash goes, but I didn't feel they would compare to my ipod, which means I would be throwing money away.

If they kept a similar "feel" to the new players, I may be interested in picking one up to be my ipods' little buddy.

[Wonder Boy]

Originally posted by Brandon Sharitt
...or releasing a new line or CRT displays.

at this point, im sure people would be happy to see any kinda of new apple display introduced.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by msbsound
The fact that you can't exercise heavily with current ipods may make some folks pick up a flash based ipod.(speaking for myself of course)

I love my ipod, but having to reset it every time I run gets annoying.

Could you elaborate on this point?

i have an iPod that i wish to exercise with ... Is there something i should know?

[CalfCanuck]

Originally posted by revenuee
Could you elaborate on this point?

i have an iPod that i wish to exercise with ... Is there something i should know?

Hard drives have many moving parts and really aren't designed for high abuse (read high impact) applications.

And in response to a number of other posts in this thread, I can't believe how misinformed people are about technology when they state that hard drives are better than flash ram - the goal is to store 0's and 1's, and digital device makers will use whatever is best given their price point. If a 50 GB Flash storage device came out cheaper than a HD in 4 or 5 years, Apple would (and should) jump ship overnight.

As I posted a month ago when the rumor of a low price "iPod" began to surface, compact flash and hard disks tangled once before in another portable, high "abuse" market where the HD had the early advantage, and the HD got it's ass kicked! I'm talking about digital photography, where the stakes were high and people were (are) willing to pay.

For my first Canon D30 in Dec 2000 I bought a 1GB IBM microdrive for about $800 - comparably priced Compact Flash cards only had 25 percent of the storage. The Microdrives had a few problems holding up to the bumps and jostles but they had the initial capacity/price advantage.

Fast forward to late 2003. High end Compact Flash cards have capacities of 4 GB and transfer rates pushing 10 MB/sec. It's called technological progress! Now these high end cards ain't cheap, at least not yet. But my Microdrive has sat in a drawer for the last year, as the more reliable 512 MB compact flash cards came down in price (in Mar 2003 I bought my third 512 MB card, for $99).

I can go buy a retail 1GB Compact Flash card for $225 today (B&H Photo). And don't forget we're talking about LAST year's production processes. I'm sure there must be some new fabrication line ramping up, that would LOVE to get an order for 1,000,000 chips (even just above cost) to bring down their average cost for their other retail compact flash units.

So if Apple wants to drop a 512 MB flash card in a cheap unit, they could find a producer to work with at a low price point. And when the 6th or 8th generation compact flash card comes out, we'll be seeing 10-20 GB compact flash iPods at prices that hard drive makers can't compete with.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by CalfCanuck
Hard drives have many moving parts and really aren't designed for high abuse (read high impact) applications.



So this this is the only part that actually pertains to my question?

[ShadowHunter]

Originally posted by aldo
Apple won't use flash. Even 512mb is too expensive for a $100/$150 device, if you include all the buttons, the case, the DSPs and also the packaging etc...

I still think Apple will ask Toshiba or someone to make a big run of small 2/4gb hard drives for a low price. These things are gonna sell like hotcakes and an order for 1million is enough to warrant a manufacturing them again.

I don't think you're quite clear on how hard drive's are built, etc. Making a special run of hard drives of 2-4gb would require new, low density platters; there wouldn't be any advantage. The cost would be almost the same as the 10gb drives, there's no point.

Flash is not that expensive, certainly competitive with a run of custom ultra-low density hard drives. Plus, doesn't flash use less battery etc?

[CalfCanuck]

Originally posted by revenuee
So this this is the only part that actually pertains to my question?

Sorry for the misunderstanding - this was in fact the only answer to your question.

The rest of my posting concerns the general discussion of this thread - some people imply (incorrectly) that compact flash is old technology, when in fact it is the future of portable devices like iPods.

Originally posted by Brandon Sharitt
Probably just a bunch of crap. For Apple to back track and make a flash based iPod would be like them redesigning the iMac with a floppy drive or releasing a new line or CRT displays.

Hard drives failures are a problem for all computers, but are an especially difficult one for portable devices. I'm 3 for 3 for hard drive failures for my "portable office" (I logged over 100,000 air miles last year alone, with 2 laptops and a couple of external HDs). All were within the first year, and I bought a completely new unit to replace the failing one (couldn't trust a reconditioned unit). Hopefully my LaCie d2 250GB will last a little longer but the key, as always, is backup.

So this issue of having a "dependable" portable device boils down to reducing the number of moving parts that can break - and thus iPods WILL move to flash ram in the future as soon as it's price competitive.

[itsbetteronamac]

I don't think that a 1 GB flash iPod would be a bad idea. Especially for people who have smaller music collections, and are just wanting the lastest songs. I wouldn't buy one I just got a newq 20gb iPod for x-mas. Plus apple could just put in a 1GB IMB micro drive, with the whole new IBM partenership. God for atheltic people.

[mhouse]

I apologize if this were discussed earlier, but I'd really like some insight. The rumors/reports I have seen say 2 and 4 gb "mini- iPods" and that they will be priced as low as 99 bucks.

These specs, if accurate, all but eliminate the idea of a flash-based "mini- iPod" don't they? Apple has never been a company to produce a product at a loss (or even a less than hefty profit), and even a 2gb flash-based iPod would surely make a 99 dollar price point an impossibility, yes? I don't see how, even with a sweetheart deal from a flash supplier, that idea could make any money.

I think cheaper iPods are absolutely crucial, but surely they will be HD-based along the lines of the Rio Nitrus.

Let me know if I'm wrong on the technology here.

[iMook]

mhouse: A miniHDD would not lower the price point to $100, even without considering Apple's penchant for large profit margins.



A point of clarification: The Rio Nitrus uses a special 1.5 GB hard drive manufactured by Cornice. Cornice has only one capacity so far, 1.5 GB, and as far as I know, has no public plans to diversify its product line. Its drives are starting to appear in portable entertainment devices because of their lower cost and fewer number of parts, in comparison to Toshiba and Hitachi offerings (all CF HDDs).

Cornice hard drives do not bundle the firmware and control chips into the hard drive casing, whereas Toshiba and Hitachi microdrives squeeze everything you need to interface with the HDD into a 1" inch square. This is why Cornice drives are cheaper. They keep the firmware on chips outside the HDD casing, but inside the portable device.

The Compactflash drives that everyone is talking about are significantly more expensive to produce, and thus drive up portable-device prices. If Apple is going to reach anything close to a $100 price point with a miniHDD player, it's going to have to go to Cornice. (Unless it can convince Toshiba to sell microdrives at below manufacturing cost, which is not happening)

As for flash... I actually started writing this post thinking that Apple would go HDD, but now I'm not so sure. Each of Apple's products is distinct from every other. Let's consider its product lines: monolithic G5 desktops, table-lamp iMacs, all-in-one eMacs, snow-white plastic iBooks, matte aluminum Powerbooks. All of these are absolutely distinct in their design. If Apple is going to introduce a MiniMP3, it'd try to differentiate the new product from the iPod. Thus, a completely new form factor is pretty certain, but this need for uniqueness may make Apple opt for flash memory's form-factor flexibility. (you can make a flash mp3 player into absolutely any shape you want)

Also, no matter if they opt for miniHDD or flash memory, the price point won't be low enough to make a clear distinction between the iPod and the new mp3 player. Thus, Apple may use flash memory in order to cater to a different user base. (zero moving parts = high impact tolerance = no skipping no matter what)

[CalfCanuck]

Originally posted by iMook
Thus, Apple may use flash memory in order to cater to a different user base. (zero moving parts = high impact tolerance = no skipping no matter what) [/B]
The other advantage of a different product line is that you can sell a minature, impact-resistant unit to people who already own an iPod.

So besides capturing the "new" low-budget market, you increase your sales using your existing market base (just as owners of g5 towers might also have a small laptop).

[peharri]

One of the consistant parts of the rumour is that the low-end ePod will be 2G. So whether it's flash based or not, these comments about being concerned about it being only half a gig are probably, hopefully, groundless.

If they can get 2G of flash in a $100 device, then this would be wonderful news: battery life would be much better, the machine would be noiseless, and it'd be slightly more robust too. I'd prefer a 6G iPod with flash to the 10G iPod with an HD I have now.

I still don't quite believe the rumours. But I guess given the crash in flash prices over the last few months, the "flash based ePod" looks to me fractionally more plausable than the "low capacity HD based ePod" one. The only way I can see them doing the latter is if they do the opposite of the rumours and the ePod is actually larger than an iPod, large enough to incorporate a laptop 2.5" drive.

[mhouse]

So I get what your saying Mook...about the HD vs. flash thing. I guess the gist of my question is this: which part of the reports we have heard so far do you think is wrong?

Are you thinking that we'll see a lower capacity player from Apple at the 99 dollar price point or a higher-capacity player at a higher-than-reported price?

Do you think the 99 dollar price point is just bogus?

Later!

[pkradd]

MOSR (not always reliable) is reporting that there are two different new iPods coming. A low-priced and mid-priced, as opposed to the current iPod "high price" I guess. Nobody knows what's coming and discussion is fun but the real deal will be revealed in 10 days. There's also a left-field drive possiblity from Dataplay. Currently it only holds 500MB. If there's a smaller iPod at a very low price the market would be kids and teens. By the way, the current iPod has about a 35 minute buffer memory so jogging with it for that time will give you continuous music until it has to reload.

[happyadam]

Also, no matter if they opt for miniHDD or flash memory, the price point won't be low enough to make a clear distinction between the iPod and the new mp3 player.

That's assuming the flash card is included. What if the mini iPod is just like a digi-cam with an empty replaceable CFII slot? - i.e. let the customer decide whether they want 1 or 2GB flash card, or microdrive or just several cheaper smaller cards.

They might throw in a cheap 128 or 256MB card for good measure but it would help them keep the price down.

[savar]

Originally posted by macFanDave
when the source is Rob Enderle. He's an idiot (and a Microsoft-sponsored FUDster.)


Yeah, he is. This is the same guy who has said repeatedly that Apple should port everything over to x86 or else they will immediately go out of business. Rob Enderle is basically the bum on the corner with the sign that says "the world will end tomorrow" which is so obviously weathered you know he's been holding it up for 10 years. Except the bum has probably accomplished more during his life than Mr. Enderle has.

Furthermore, who the $##* came up with the rumor about the new iPods being flash based!? Flash memory is sooo expensive, and if the flash sticks are removable then it will just make the ipod complicated.

We've been talking for 3 months about the new 2.5" 2G and 4G drives that Toshiba has been making. I'm sure the 2G model costs less than 512 M of flash memory (which is around $180). Flash based players are completely stupid, I really never saw the point of buying an MP3 player until the iPod came out.

ARrgghh, guess we'll see soon enough.

[iMook]

mhouse:

I think the only way they're going to hit anything close to a $99 price point is if:
1. They sell at a loss, which won't happen, considering it's Apple we're talking about.
2. They go for a low-capacity flash player, and I mean 128MB/256 MB when I say "low".

Thus, Apple can now choose to go for two things:
1. High-impact users (sports, running, etc.) If this, then they'll go for a low-capacity flash player, and maybe consider the $99 price point.
2. Mid-capacity (Cornice HDD, microdrives, StorCard (though this is farfetched)) smaller-form-factor HDD player, which will fill the same niche as the Rio Nitrus and Creative MuVo2 (both with Cornice drives, might I add).

So, IMHO, I think they'd go for a flash player, as the only advantage that a miniHDD offers is a smaller form factor. It doesn't fill a different niche. Every Apple product fills a different niche, and each niche has only one product line filling it. It's perfect. The iPod fills the carry-around-a-ton-of-music-which-can't-stand-prolonged-jostling jukebox niche.
I really don't see a point in introducing a smaller version which fills almost the same niche.

My 2 cents.


savar:

Why in the world would Apple use a BIGGER form factor for a 2GB/4GB iPod? FYI: The current iPod uses a 1.8" HDD. Putting a 2.5" HDD in a "mini iPod" would be a bad marketing move, IMHO. See above for the argument in support of flash-based.

[Doctor Q]

I've solved Apple's problem. The ideal low-end product is a no-storage iPod that holds zero songs. Why? Because it will be cheap to manufacture and sell, but will still have the Apple coolness factor. Maybe it'll even let you play a game or a few builtin songs. People who can't afford portable music can still have an iPod for a few bucks. When they can afford one that holds music, they can upgrade. And the fashion conscious can afford to buy one of each color to match their daily outfits.

Now we need a name. Hmmm, the 0Pod ("zero pod")? The noPod?

[CalfCanuck]

Originally posted by happyadam
That's assuming the flash card is included. What if the mini iPod is just like a digi-cam with an empty replaceable CFII slot? - i.e. let the customer decide whether they want 1 or 2GB flash card, or microdrive or just several cheaper smaller cards.

They might throw in a cheap 128 or 256MB card for good measure but it would help them keep the price down.
Give the man a cigar - I'm sold!

This is an VERY interesting idea with some history behind it. Remember how Apple used to charge us for those "extras" like keyboards? Why not do the old bait and switch one more time. A 256MB card could hold 50-60 songs right out of the gate, but the unit could be upgraded by the user as the price of compact flash cards drops.

The reality is that Apple NEEDS to get an entry price iPod out there if it wants to remain a key player in this market. (see some of the other posts about how Apple innovation has failed time and again to translate into market share). Of course they control the high end at the present, but I bought a $100 mp3 player for my niece this Christmas rather than dropping $300 for an iPod, and I'm sure I wasn't alone.

As I've stated several times here, all roads lead to flash ram once they solve the price issue. That will probably take 4-5 years, since they are now only on 4th generation production.

Apple needs to stay ahead of this curve - get their design crews going and create useable, elegant, and exciting units at the low end of the market. This will continue to create up-grade demand for the more expensive i-Pods, as well as give them a boost on designing the future flash ramm i-Pods we'll see in 4-5 years.

[StudioGuy]

I was going to post that thought of Apple providing a very small flash card to make the $99, and let you bring it to 1 GB or whatever; but, then I thought, now Apple wouldn't cheap out on a thing like that, would they?... :confused: Doesn't seem like a very Apple thing to do, and I'd have trouble seeing Steve brag about that at MWSF.

I'm still waiting for a line-in (dare I say full bandwidth) higher-end iPod as a portable recording backup. Those flash based audio recorders are still about $600.

[CalfCanuck]

Originally posted by StudioGuy
I was going to post that thought of Apple providing a very small flash card to make the $99, and let you bring it to 1 GB or whatever; but, then I thought, now Apple wouldn't cheap out on a thing like that, would they?... :confused: Doesn't seem like a very Apple thing to do, and I'd have trouble seeing Steve brag about that at MWSF.
In my post above I mentioned the habit Apple had of charging an extra $100 for your keyboard for YEARS - if that ain't cheap, what is?

And they've been infamous for always skimping on RAM, right through to the high-performance end. Look at the G5's - the 1.6 ships with 256 MB RAM, and the $3000 model Dual 2 GHz ships with a hilarious 512MB. Do you think anyone would use actually use that configuration right out of the box?

So if Apple's not ashamed to cut a few corners on their $3K machines, I sure hope they do the same and bring out a model to cover their flanks on the low end of the market.

As I've said a few times here, some sort of flash ram is the future of these portable devices - more durable (good for user as well as controlling Apple warranty expenses), longer battery life, smaller unit, etc.

As the price of this memory falls, the size of the entry level $99 units will continue to rise. Once it hits 1GB, Apple will start to sweat, and when it hits 4 or 8GB, iPod sales will be affected - granted that will take 4 or 5 years, but time flies.

[CalfCanuck]

Much of the discussion on entry level iPods focuses on how a 256MB or 512MB model wouldn't be enough to hold the users music collection. Yet I feel that this misses one of the amazing features of digital music players in the future.

Rather than focusing solely on listening to your own music (after all, you already know your taste), a key feature in the future will be listen to some one else's musical favorites.

Musicians, critics, celebrities, historical figures. Sting's 256 MB favorites, the songs that Marolyn Monroe listened to, YoYo Ma's 512MB playlist, etc.

Apple could create a HUGE catalogue of playlists of 2 or 3 set sizes - the user would temporarily download them onto their mini-iPod, listen to them for a couple of days, then download the next one.

These could include regional / international ones, so somone from France, living in another country,could download the latest playlist if they're curious as to what's popular back home. Or someone planning a trip to Zaire or Thailand could here in advance what's happening there.

[montecristo]

Originally posted by CalfCanuck
Much of the discussion on entry level iPods focuses on how a 256MB or 512MB model wouldn't be enough to hold the users music collection. Yet I feel that this misses one of the amazing features of digital music players in the future.

Rather than focusing solely on listening to your own music (after all, you already know your taste), a key feature in the future will be listen to some one else's musical favorites.

Musicians, critics, celebrities, historical figures. Sting's 256 MB favorites, the songs that Marolyn Monroe listened to, YoYo Ma's 512MB playlist, etc.

Apple could create a HUGE catalogue of playlists of 2 or 3 set sizes - the user would temporarily download them onto their mini-iPod, listen to them for a couple of days, then download the next one.

These could include regional / international ones, so somone from France, living in another country,could download the latest playlist if they're curious as to what's popular back home. Or someone planning a trip to Zaire or Thailand could here in advance what's happening there.

This would be a very interesting idea....swap-able playlists with friends etc.
Also, Apple could be able to convince the record companies to release new albums in the flash-card format, so you could either download on iTunes, or (if you are away from your mac) drop into a music store anywhere in he world, pick up the latest album, and pop it into your "iPod Jr." Once prices in flash cards drop enough -- so long, CD! It would be the final nail in the coffin.

[tubedogg]

That would be cool, but not gonna happen. If you think about it, the flash cards would have to be at least ~600MB to accomodate CD-equvilant tracks. The nearest card would be 512MB and those are between $100 and $150 each right now, vs. $12 to $20 for a CD.

[montecristo]

Originally posted by tubedogg
That would be cool, but not gonna happen. If you think about it, the flash cards would have to be at least ~600MB to accomodate CD-equvilant tracks. The nearest card would be 512MB and those are between $100 and $150 each right now, vs. $12 to $20 for a CD.

True, but (a) prices would drop, and (b) in MP3 format or AAC format you could get an album into a 64 MB card. (That's how the 40GB iPods hold 10,000 songs). The 64 MB cards could easily drop to the $20-$25 level, especially if produced and sold at the volumes CDs are sold at.

[tubedogg]

Who would pay $25 for MP3-quality tracks though?

I'm not saying it can't happen but the price on those cards is going to have to nosedive to $5 or less for a 64MB card before this could even conceivably happen.

[montecristo]

Originally posted by tubedogg
Who would pay $25 for MP3-quality tracks though?

I'm not saying it can't happen but the price on those cards is going to have to nosedive to $5 or less for a 64MB card before this could even conceivably happen.

I know; I probably wouldn't pay more than a CD for MP3-quality tracks, either.

But, I think Apple (unfortunately) has argued in the past that AAC format is "just as good as" CDs. :eek: (I remember them saying this when they released the 3G iPod and the iTunes music store in April). Of course, there IS a difference; the question is whether consumers will be willing to sacrifice the CD quality, for MP3 portability. Apple has clearly been betting that people would, and I know I myself will sacrifice quality at least while I'm out of the house.

Perhaps the more likely scenario is that MP3 albums would co-exist with CDs, for the next few years until (if and when) they figure out how to get the mp3 quality higher, and the price even lower.

[Doctor Q]

Would Apple consider using a different compression method for mini iPods, to increase song capacity at the cost of lessened sound quality? Since the capacity will be limited, maybe users would prefer quantity to quality. Personally, I'd rather see Apple stick to their current AAC format and good quality music.

[tubedogg]

I'd be extremely surprised if the MiniPod doesn't support everything that the iPod itself supports.

[revenuee]

Hmm ... well the idea of a Flash based collection being purchased at a music store may not be viable yet, since Flash cards are still pricey. But this has possibilities. Compression formats getting better, Memory Cards getting cheaper, our obsession with making things smaller

could you imagine a Flash card Changer?

but i think the idea of having pre made playlists available for download on iTunes Store ... would be great.

But then again, wouldn't that be defeat the whole point?

i mean isn't the point to have the music you like? download the tracks you want and make your own CD or having it in Your iPod or player of choice? ... if you start have to download/buy the entire collection then it would be a step backwards ...

but maybe the choice to download the songs you like, from a particular playlist now we are talking

What i would like to see more of is at music stores the ability to mix your own CD's ... walk in, pick the songs you like from the data base... burn the CD, and walk away ... or the ability to fill your Mp3 player at a music store

Since you don't always have access to your computer, you could walk into the music store ... pick some Tracks.. and then, for a few, load them onto your player ... this would be killer at airports, maybe even rather then a person, just have a kiosk set up, a do it your self

[montecristo]

Originally posted by revenuee


What i would like to see more of is at music stores the ability to mix your own CD's ... walk in, pick the songs you like from the data base... burn the CD, and walk away ... or the ability to fill your Mp3 player at a music store



The had exactly this idea in the mid-to-late 80's just before the CD. You could walk into a music store (anyone remember Sam Goody's?) and select from a bunch of songs and make your own mix-tape.

This idea completely flopped, I think because it was too pricey and the song selection pretty much sucked (and it took a long time -- no computer searches, just leaving through a book and entering in your selection). But, this time around, the technology is much better and things like iTMS shows that the music industry is willing to sell songs a la carte, in a downloadable format.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by montecristo
The had exactly this idea in the mid-to-late 80's just before the CD. You could walk into a music store (anyone remember Sam Goody's?) and select from a bunch of songs and make your own mix-tape.

This idea completely flopped, I think because it was too pricey and the song selection pretty much sucked (and it took a long time -- no computer searches, just leaving through a book and entering in your selection). But, this time around, the technology is much better and things like iTMS shows that the music industry is willing to sell songs a la carte, in a downloadable format.

Well you had to record tapes in real time. 1 hour tape would take 1 hour to make, and someone would have to sit there recording it, and making sure everything went through

Now, just pick the songs you want, hit burn, and in what? 10- 15 minutes the CD is burned?

again, have a few do it yourself Kiosks in music stores for people interested ... acctualy it is my understanding that a few places in LA and NY tried it, but there were limited selections still ...but i guess now with the songs on servers available for easy access, who knows?

[tubedogg]

Originally posted by revenuee
Now, just pick the songs you want, hit burn, and in what? 10- 15 minutes the CD is burned?Or 2 to 3. My consumer CD burner from Liteon takes about 3 minutes for a full 74 minute CD.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by tubedogg
Or 2 to 3. My consumer CD burner from Liteon takes about 3 minutes for a full 74 minute CD.

There you go, just strengthens my point .. thanks

then what .. the entire process of selection and Burning would take 10 - 15 minutes?

you don't have to pay a person do work it since it would be a do it yourself kiosk

keep the price at 0.99$ plus the CD plus a charge to use the machine would be implemented I'm sure

so you've got a machine that thats making 15 - 25$ per person ... and can serve 4 people in an hour ... so this thing is now making you 100$ per hour ...

Mind you, i know that people aren't going to be constantly lining up, but the thing could also have search uses of well to find things in the store.

Might eliminate a few teenage jobs though ...

[CalfCanuck]

The cool thing about this collection of playlists that I mentioned earlier is that a massive selection of playlists exposes you not only to music you've never heard before (quick, tell me the top 10 songs in Nigeria today), but to innovative and eclectic mixes and selections.

But why does everyone feel you have to own them? Do people refuse to listen to the radio because they don't "own" the songs?

Maybe this collection of playlists could be a monthly subscription (unlimited playlist downloads for $20/month), for playback only. If you find a song you really like, then you "buy" it from a different part of the website.

So the playlists are "consumed" then discarded - you download a new one to replace the one you just trashed. (Monday morning while you're taking a shower, you download the 20 best songs from a Paris-based DJ, Tuesday you trash that playlist and download a classical collection from the conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra, Weds is a Berlin techno collection, Thursday a selction from your favorite rock star, Friday is Brad Pitt day, etc)

[montecristo]

Originally posted by CalfCanuck
....

So the playlists are "consumed" then discarded - you download a new one to replace the one you just trashed. (Monday morning while you're taking a shower, you download the 20 best songs from a Paris-based DJ, Tuesday you trash that playlist and download a classical collection from the conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra, Weds is a Berlin techno collection, Thursday a selction from your favorite rock star, Friday is Brad Pitt day, etc) ...

That's kinda like a NetFlix idea -- you rent one (or two) playlists at a time, when you're done with it, you get a new one. You don't get to keep anything, but it costs you $20 bucks a month, but there are no "late fees". If you want to keep anything you like, you go to iTMS to buy it.

It could work. It certainly would get rid of the fear of buyer's regret that sometimes keeps people from actually buying songs. I guess the key is to price it right, and to have enough flexibility and variety in the rental playlists.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by CalfCanuck
The cool thing about this collection of playlists that I mentioned earlier is that a massive selection of playlists exposes you not only to music you've never heard before (quick, tell me the top 10 songs in Nigeria today), but to innovative and eclectic mixes and selections.

But why does everyone feel you have to own them? Do people refuse to listen to the radio because they don't "own" the songs?

Maybe this collection of playlists could be a monthly subscription (unlimited playlist downloads for $20/month), for playback only. If you find a song you really like, then you "buy" it from a different part of the website.

So the playlists are "consumed" then discarded - you download a new one to replace the one you just trashed. (Monday morning while you're taking a shower, you download the 20 best songs from a Paris-based DJ, Tuesday you trash that playlist and download a classical collection from the conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra, Weds is a Berlin techno collection, Thursday a selction from your favorite rock star, Friday is Brad Pitt day, etc)

for playback only? what does that mean?

i can't put it on my iPod? and what to stop me from keeping these songs then?

would they be of lower quality? so that it wouldn't be worth keeping them?

how what this work?

[tubedogg]

The DRM for these files could easily be set so they "expire" after a set number of days on your 'Pod, and as you've seen already, they can prevent you from playing them on a non-authorized computer (so even if you manually moved them onto another computer you wouldn't be able to play them).

[revenuee]

and a new generation of cracks and hacks evolves

now we are just getting complicated

[tubedogg]

True but look how long it's taken for the initial version of AAC+Fairplay to be cracked, and it's only really in a state that's proof of concept at that.

For the average Joe it's "good enough" protection against them breaking it.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by tubedogg
True but look how long it's taken for the initial version of AAC+Fairplay to be cracked, and it's only really in a state that's proof of concept at that.

For the average Joe it's "good enough" protection against them breaking it.

reality is that it is feasible. i wouldn't care for it, and wouldn't use it

BUT ... i'm open minded enough to realize that Apple is not making it's products for me, and me alone. So if Apple PR does some focus groups and whatever it is that they do, and sees this it being worth the time an money to develop this ... I say great ... anything that ensures that when i feel that my Sawtooth G4 is no longer doin it for me, there will be an Apple to get my next PowerMac or PowerBook

[magicmusic]

I haven't tought about the atletic people when I went to the 'Guiness World Records' for a 'Silent Computer'candidate.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by magicmusic
I haven't tought about the atletic people when I went to the 'Guiness World Records' for a 'Silent Computer'candidate.

I may have been drinking to much these last few weeks so i'm gonna need you to explain this for me

[magicmusic]

:)

[evoluzione]

well, getting back to the flash iPod thing for a sec...

i have over 60gigs of music, and i would love to see a cheaper and much smaller iPod. I don't currently have one (i had an original 5gig but sold it as it was too small etc) and don't want to shell out $500 for a 40gig, but i could quite easily fork out $100-150 on a small player that i could change playlists on every other day or so, i'd only really use it for the 40min subway ride and my moods change so i'd just spend a few seconds syncing it with what tunes i'd want that day....perfect.