Black U2 iPod?

[MacRumors]

This Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/technology/personaltech/2004/10/18/cx_mm_1018aapl.html) provides more details about the rumored U2-special edition iPod.

According to their article:

Sources close to the group say the U2 edition of the popular digital music player will come preloaded with the band's new album, How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb, along with portions of the Irish supergroup's 25-year catalogue. The iPods will be black and will be made available the same week as the band's 11th studio album, which is slated to be released in the U.S. by Universal Music Group's Interscope Records on November 23.

The upcoming U2-edition of the iPod was previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/10/20041018125520.shtml) with an Apple Music Event scheduled for October 26th.

[AoWolf]

Black Ick (thinks of jag iPod)

[Phat_Pat]

that sounds a little strange (the black pod sounds cool as long as it doesn't have any cheesy logos)

i wonder what U2 did for apple?

[AoWolf]

that sounds a little strange (the black pod sounds cool as long as it doesn't have any cheesy logos)

i wonder what U2 did for apple?

Or what apple did for u2.

[aswitcher]

So will the headphones be black as well...?

[zwida]

Black Ick (thinks of jag iPod)

I know what you mean about that hideous jag promo, but somehow I have trouble thinking that this will actually manage to suck.

[AoWolf]

So will the headphones be black as well...?

Hmm interesting thought I would guess no. I don't think black on Silver would look so good maybe the bottom will be black too.

[Flying Llama]

hmm black sounds cool...

[Phat_Pat]

hmm black sounds cool...


yeah or wireless headphones (ohh please please please) :D :D :rolleyes:

[mebasham]

Jimmy Iovine (Chairman of Interscope, A&M, Dreamworks and Geffen Records) has a unique relationship with Steve Jobs - he truly believes in Steve's vision. That's why so many of their artists are featured in apple promos, special iTunes content, etc.

[Flying Llama]

yeah or wireless headphones (ohh please please please) :D :D :rolleyes:

that would be nice, but would be easy to lose little things like that. :rolleyes:

[brap]

How... tacky.

[ijimk]

Wow that is really kool. I love Vetigo and think U2 rocks i am sure this will help apple maintain its marketshare on digital music and music players. :)

[raynegus]

It sounds like a great promo. Apple will sell a ton of them, just because they are different.

I'm waiting for the special edition gold plated iPod myself.

[Calvinatir]

might not be a bad idea to buy apple stock tonight....

[Duff-Man]

Duff-Man says....I would love a black iPod...it's just too bad about the U2 part of it (yeuch!)......oh yeah!

[Mechcozmo]

Well, I won't be buying it but this sounds really cool.

A side note for other special edition things: Apple has made clear-cased Netwons and Macs for the VIPs...are there are see-through iPods?
And why would U2/Apple go with black for the iPod, they could go with a see through iPod. That would be very neat.

[~Shard~]

This seems to specialized to me. Really, how many people and how much demand is there for something like this? I suppose people could always just buy it for it's unique black color and then erase the U2 tracks from it though.... ;)

[Phat_Pat]

Well, I won't be buying it but this sounds really cool.

A side note for other special edition things: Apple has made clear-cased Netwons and Macs for the VIPs...are there are see-through iPods?
And why would U2/Apple go with black for the iPod, they could go with a see through iPod. That would be very neat.

a see through iPod would be cool but probably would look tacky unless they painted the insides :rolleyes:

[Jovian9]

This seems to specialized to me. Really, how many people and how much demand is there for something like this? I suppose people could always just buy it for it's unique black color and then erase the U2 tracks from it though.... ;)

Anything post-1990 U2 would definitely need to be erased ;)

[kiwi-in-uk]

Let's see the so-called "open ecosystem" (WMA (http://news.com.com/Microsoft+opens+Windows+to+the+home/2100-1046_3-5406322.html))
match this level of co-operation.

[swissmann]

I wonder who is benefitting more from this marketing U2 or Apple? I don't care what color the iPod is because it is usually hidden in my pocket.

[Phat_Pat]

that would be nice, but would be easy to lose little things like that. :rolleyes:

not with a neat little "page" feature :rolleyes:

[Corrupted]

It states that in might come loaded with U2's newest album. If i'm not mistaken unless you use third party software to pull the music off, won't the ablum be deletted once you sync the iPod?

[condor]

This sounds cool, but I wonder how you will get the pre-loaded songs off the iPod into iTunes on your computer? Imagine if the first time you synced it up it erased all the U2 music with your iTunes library. Maybe there will be copies of the songs on the data part of the iPod, or is there some new two-way syncing going on?

edit: doh, not fast enough with my question! Corrupted beat me to it.

[dongmin]

Hmm interesting thought I would guess no. I don't think black on Silver would look so good maybe the bottom will be black too.actually black and silver is a popular, classic combo:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000CH6GA.01-A1PY46IM1CBEG3._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000AGRYX.01.PT08.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[Corrupted]

This sounds cool, but I wonder how you will get the pre-loaded songs off the iPod into iTunes on your computer? Imagine if the first time you synced it up it erased all the U2 music with your iTunes library. Maybe there will be copies of the songs on the data part of the iPod, or is there some new two-way syncing going on?

edit: doh, not fast enough with my question! Corrupted beat me to it.

HEHE... Great minds think alike!

[ClimbingTheLog]

That new U2 ad on the store just doesn't work. U2 looks stupid. The dancers aren't able to bust a groove to the U2 style of music. It's really un-hip - suprising from Apple & U2. Plus the cords are white, not black.

[wPod]

sounds cool, but id have to see it in person to see if it looks cool. and to think, my iPod is starting to act up, i hope it last though, (its a 1st generation)

[pseudobrit]

I find it hard to believe no one has made the connection.

Why it's black:

[AoWolf]

actually black and silver is a popular, classic combo:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000CH6GA.01-A1PY46IM1CBEG3._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000AGRYX.01.PT08.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Silver was a bad word Chrome would be better. Still doesn't sound apple like.

[ssnmx]

Black iPod?? Cool!
Can't wait to see one of those!

I really hope they come up with something amazing. :D

[Porchland]

I'm guessing maybe the box will include a special iTMS download certificate since the iPod has to be formatted for Mac or PC before you can use it.

[Porchland]

That new U2 ad on the store just doesn't work. U2 looks stupid. The dancers aren't able to bust a groove to the U2 style of music. It's really un-hip - suprising from Apple & U2. Plus the cords are white, not black.

I thought it looked kind of contrived, but I thought for sure I was in the unhip minority. I dig the song though!

[Avicdar]

That new U2 ad on the store just doesn't work. U2 looks stupid. The dancers aren't able to bust a groove to the U2 style of music. It's really un-hip - suprising from Apple & U2. Plus the cords are white, not black.

The white cords are starting to become the tell-tale sign that what you are seeing is an iPod. The use of them in the U2 ad is surely deliberate. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the cords weren't actually there, and were comped in during post.

I really haven't liked the iPod silouette ads very much, up until now. There seems to be some real coherent advertising logic in play here (melding the band into the silouette theme but keeping them recognizable).

Pretty clever, if you ask me (but I know you didn't). :D

[Avicdar]

I'm guessing maybe the box will include a special iTMS download certificate since the iPod has to be formatted for Mac or PC before you can use it.

Couldn't they just as easily include a CD-ROM that contains protected tunes and a special installer that gets 'em onto your machine and authorized?

They have got to have a way to let people have copies of these, or they will go nuts with tech support restoring these 'lost tunes that were included in the price of the iPod'.

Apple will have figured out a way.

I suppose another way to do it is issue a special coupon that hooks you up to the music store and downloads a special playlist of U2 songs for free. Sort of like a gift certificate.

[rendezvouscp]

I'm sure that Apple would include the songs on CD and the iPod itself. Maybe they'll write a quick script that moves the song off the iPod into your music library.
–Chase

[whw5]

I have started liking U2 a lot more lately. Personally I think the black ipod sounds cool, how about a black mini? I think that would be awsome. However, I know some people would think that to be very ugly.

[jared_kipe]

I have started liking U2 a lot more lately. Personally I think the black ipod sounds cool, how about a black mini? I think that would be awsome. However, I know some people would think that to be very ugly.

Exactly what I was thinking about, black mini, I just don't know why apple would sully the original white image with a black version.

[~Shard~]

Anything post-1990 U2 would definitely need to be erased ;)

My thoughts exactly - U2 are getting a bit on now and past their prime, and have been for quite some time. Ah well, I'm not a fan, but many people are, so to each their own!

[reyesmac]

As much fun as it would be to own a black iPod, I will still wait till Jan for sales or a new version of the iPod. If the black iPod is a huge hit, they will just end up selling it along with the white anyway.

[Xtremehkr]

Apart from being in stark contrast to white, it's much more of a rock and roll shade compared to white. I am sure that Apple thought about what would happen when you sync it, I doubt the entire U2 catalogue would disappear.

As far as naming it after a plane, I am not sure that it was intended for the 1% of the population who get aroused by such things.

[jbembe]

I thought it looked kind of contrived, but I thought for sure I was in the unhip minority. I dig the song though!

I'd take comments on this forum with a grain of salt regarding hip/cool factor. The Mini was bombshelled as worthless and overpriced. :D

U2 is cool, and their new song rocks. Certain people don't like them, but then there are also people whose favorite band is Styx. So what?

[Counterfit]

I would absolutely buy this, even though I can't stand the click wheel.

[hulugu]

I find it hard to believe no one has made the connection.

Why it's black:

Nice. Bout to post the same idea, but you had a picture.

[Ugg]

Couldn't they just as easily include a CD-ROM that contains protected tunes and a special installer that gets 'em onto your machine and authorized?

They have got to have a way to let people have copies of these, or they will go nuts with tech support restoring these 'lost tunes that were included in the price of the iPod'.

Apple will have figured out a way.

I suppose another way to do it is issue a special coupon that hooks you up to the music store and downloads a special playlist of U2 songs for free. Sort of like a gift certificate.

I think the Apple Computer/Apple Corps settlement specifically precludes Apple Computer from releasing Music on CD. It would have to be direct from the label I guess, in order to get around this.

I think the best way would be simply to issue a gift certificate allowing only the download of the specific tracks.

[nagromme]

Black and chrome sounds nice. The wheel would still be light-colored, I'd guess--making that visible is kind of an iPod trademark ever since the Mini.

As for the U2 thing... it's all just marketing, I don't much care.

And as for Forbes getting into Apple rumors now... who's next, CNN? Oh, wait...

[Sharewaredemon]

Nice. Bout to post the same idea, but you had a picture.

Me three,
about the vertigo ad, it is my favourite, and I like the white chords. I remember saying to myself, white chords, nice touch. You can tell they were added in post, as there is a shot where the chord snakes off into the distance, and fades out.

I didn't much like any of the shillouhet (sp?) ads up until the last two. I have to say that the movie they played at WWDC was REALLY amazing, all that text, really a post nightmare, or they probably just pasted it into motion set up a few behaviours. I'll bet the editors just threw that ad together in like half an hour
(JOKE)

[~Shard~]

I would absolutely buy this, even though I can't stand the click wheel.

To each his own - I don't think I would buy this and I really like the click wheel! (Even though I own a 3G iPod) ;) :)

[maya]

BTW where is the WiFi integrated into the iPod, some other mp3 HDD players already have this. Why is Apple's iPod team doing sleeping?

I don't want video on an iPod however WiFi is needed, digital lifestyle with wires :rolleyes: I want my digital wireless HUB. :D


Even the mini 4Gigs get real they need to update that to 5-8Gigs already.


Apple seems to have a lag on every corners, supply and shipping. Product Announcement(s). Granted that they depends on IBM and Moto(FreeScale) for the G4 however come on already, it seems they are sitting on they hands. :mad:

[jackieonasses]

BTW where is the WiFi integrated into the iPod, some other mp3 HDD players already have this. Why is Apple's iPod team doing sleeping?

I don't want video on an iPod however WiFi is needed, digital lifestyle with wires :rolleyes: I want my digital wireless HUB. :D


Even the mini 4Gigs get real they need to update that to 5-8Gigs already.


Apple seems to have a lag on every corners, supply and shipping. Product Announcement(s). Granted that they depends on IBM and Moto(FreeScale) for the G4 however come on already, it seems they are sitting on they hands. :mad: you know how long that would take to transfer 40 gigs worth of songs to your ipod with wifi? it wont be 802.11g it will be 802.11b so you that is like 11/kbs that would take forever!

[pascalpp]

If they start distributing music (e.g. U2's new album) on physical media such as the iPod, they might be transgressing their earlier agreement with Apple Corps...

[ColdFlame87]

how about see through ipods with a neon lights inside that make them look awesome in the dark ;), black ipod sounds pretty cool tho cant wait to see it when its out i know apple will find a way to make it look cool.

[cb911]

sounds good to me. :D i'd love to see a black iPod, as long as it wasn't stickered with any third party logo's on it...

and about the iPod coming loaded with U2's new album... won't that erase it when you plug it into your Mac (or PC) and then sync it with your current iTunes library? many people might not know about that, and could get annoyed or confused if that were to happen... :eek:

give me a flat black, military style iPod. :D or perhaps black chrome all over, front and back. :D yeehaw!

damn your Flying Llama! you did make me look! :p

[coolfactor]

you know how long that would take to transfer 40 gigs worth of songs to your ipod with wifi? it wont be 802.11g it will be 802.11b so you that is like 11/kbs that would take forever!

802.11b is 11/mbs, not 11/kbs. Think about it. Standard home Internet connections run up to 1/mbs, and the wireless connection far surpasses that.

It would be usable.

[~Shard~]

BTW where is the WiFi integrated into the iPod, some other mp3 HDD players already have this. Why is Apple's iPod team doing sleeping?

Yah, that's it, I'm sure they've been sleeping. :rolleyes: There are actually many features out there that other players have which the iPod doesn't, but guess what - those players still aren't as good as the iPod. WiFi, along with color screens, larger HDs, photo capability, video capability, and all that will make its way onto the iPod. When? When Apple does it, and does it right.

I don't want video on an iPod however WiFi is needed, digital lifestyle with wires :rolleyes: I want my digital wireless HUB. :D

Thanks for your individual needs, please e-mail Apple these and I'm sure they will cater to your every desire. :rolleyes: For every person out there with a wish-list like you, there are just as many people who don't want WiFi and do want video, so you can't please everyone. Don't take it out on Apple.

Even the mini 4Gigs get real they need to update that to 5-8Gigs already.

"Get real"? :confused: Why do the minis need extra HD capacity? That's the whole point of them, they're iPod minis, designed to cater to those who don't want or require a lot of HD space but still want an iPod. If Apple just blindly upped the capacity of the mini simply because it can, they would make it a 10 GB iPod, and it would cease to be a "mini" anymore. I think a price drop or other upgrades might make more sense for now. And yes, of course the mini will in time receive marginal HD upgrades, (perhaps sooner rather than later), but not simply because they need to "get real" as you put it.

Apple seems to have a lag on every corners, supply and shipping. Product Announcement(s). Granted that they depends on IBM and Moto(FreeScale) for the G4 however come on already, it seems they are sitting on they hands. :mad:

Yah, damn Apple, what have they done for us lately...

Some people are never satisfied and have little appreciation...

[coolfactor]

and about the iPod coming loaded with U2's new album... won't that erase it when you plug it into your Mac (or PC) and then sync it with your current iTunes library? many people might not know about that, and could get annoyed or confused if that were to happen... :eek:]

They may do something similar that they do for .Mac members. There's a special folder on your iDisk where you can grab "Member's Only" software. The iPod may have a special folder you access from the Finder (remember, it's a hard drive) that contains the U2 album.

[maya]

Yah, that's it, I'm sure they've been sleeping. :rolleyes: There are actually many features out there that other players have which the iPod doesn't, but guess what - those players still aren't as good as the iPod. WiFi, along with color screens, larger HDs, photo capability, video capability, and all that will make its way onto the iPod. When? When Apple does it, and does it right.



Thanks for your individual needs, please e-mail Apple these and I'm sure they will cater to your every desire. :rolleyes: For every person out there with a wish-list like you, there are just as many people who don't want WiFi and do want video, so you can't please everyone. Don't take it out on Apple.



"Get real"? :confused: Why do the minis need extra HD capacity? That's the whole point of them, they're iPod minis, designed to cater to those who don't want or require a lot of HD space but still want an iPod. If Apple just blindly upped the capacity of the mini simply because it can, they would make it a 10 GB iPod, and it would cease to be a "mini" anymore. I think a price drop or other upgrades might make more sense for now. And yes, of course the mini will in time receive marginal HD upgrades, (perhaps sooner rather than later), but not simply because they need to "get real" as you put it.



Yah, damn Apple, what have they done for us lately...

Some people are never satisfied and have little appreciation...

They have AirTunes, so I don't see it as a stretch to have a WiFi iPod.

What happened to the who Wireless network that Apple tooted with Panthers, am I to believe that it died with Tiger.

Battery power on the iPod, if you are telling me this is a complex request you must be living in a dream world, it is always great to have a decent amount of battery life and no 4-6h (1-3G iPods) and 5-10h (4G iPod) is not going to cut it. It is obvious that Apple iPod DEV sees the problem and what do they do ship the 1-3G iPods with the same 4-6h battery life. I have no problems paying the price however a decent battery life is welcome. Even with all the firmware, and software updated on my PB and iPod 3G 20Gig, after an outlet charge it still gives me half battery indicator WTF is that. :confused: Is that what you call doing a product right. :rolleyes:

Are you telling me that people will pay $249 USD for 4 gigs when Apple can upgrade the mini to a 5 or even a 8gig HD for the same price. Again you must think people are morons. Granted that they have a 4 gig however does Apple truly feel that its on the top of the list any longer its been 9-10 months already since introduction. Where is that update already? If they are having problems with shipping, supply, I believe they need to fire whoever is in charge and hire someone else. This is poor business with a bad image, people will only accept it for so long. :rolleyes:

Yes, I do feel they are sleeping when they intro a product its top of the line. However when they start shipping it its already slipped it ranking. And if you think this is false then again your must be in a dream world. :rolleyes:

Wake up Apple, when you introduce a product have something to ship already this is getting old and quite annoying :mad:

[jackieonasses]

802.11b is 11/mbs, not 11/kbs. Think about it. Standard home Internet connections run up to 1/mbs, and the wireless connection far surpasses that.

It would be usable. dangit! i meant 11mbs. None the less firewire gives off 400 mbs, and it take 6 or 7 minutes for a 40 gig ipod to transfer.. it would take 45 minutes for a "wifi" ipod to do that.

the only thing i could see that is feasible to the idea of a "wifi" ipod is, a remote to stream to airtunes. Keep the firewire for transferring mass amounts of songs. But that is definitely a luxury. (the remote streamer thingy)

[m2uk]

... since I tipped them about the rumoured black iPod and U2.

Oh well.. the momentum is growing!

[Abstract]

and about the iPod coming loaded with U2's new album... won't that erase it when you plug it into your Mac (or PC) and then sync it with your current iTunes library? many people might not know about that, and could get annoyed or confused if that were to happen... :eek:


Do people not read threads anymore? Don't people at least read the first page of a thread, or at least the first half of the first page? :confused:

[mj_1903]

I can only assume that it will come on a CD with the iPod. When you format an iPod for Windows machines when you first connect it, it would destroy all the music.

[bdkennedy1]

Well, I won't be buying it but this sounds really cool.

A side note for other special edition things: Apple has made clear-cased Netwons and Macs for the VIPs...are there are see-through iPods?
And why would U2/Apple go with black for the iPod, they could go with a see through iPod. That would be very neat.

The only things that are made see-through anymore are glass, saran wrap, and those $5 telephones that use pulse dialing at the dollar store.

[daddy-mojo]

It states that in might come loaded with U2's newest album. If i'm not mistaken unless you use third party software to pull the music off, won't the ablum be deletted once you sync the iPod?

yah really how would retrieve it off "legally", I mean we all know where to go and how to do it. maybe you'll get a promo code to download from itms.

[sw1tcher]

Maybe the black ipod will look like this one.

http://www.colorwarepc.com/_inventoryimages/images/galleryLarge/ipod/carbon.jpg

[VicMacs]

looks like my old tap shoes... shinnnnnnyyyyyy

but i still want one... and a powerbook G5

:o

[t300]

U2 is so old. Why should they get an iPod? Give it to up and coming talent or current talent....Not U2! Jeez, it's like just as bad as having an Aerosmith iPod...Old folks are not Apple's market.

[IndyGopher]

If i'm not mistaken

You're mistaken

[t300]

If they start distributing music (e.g. U2's new album) on physical media such as the iPod, they might be transgressing their earlier agreement with Apple Corps...


Um...yeah...I'm pretty sure that's already happened...Oh well..

[IndyGopher]

U2 is so old. Why should they get an iPod? Give it to up and coming talent or current talent....Not U2! Jeez, it's like just as bad as having an Aerosmith iPod...Old folks are not Apple's market.
Once I decide whether or not you were being serious, I'll decide whether you're clever or an idiot. Not looking very favorable at the moment.

[aswitcher]

Maybe the black ipod will look like this one.

http://www.colorwarepc.com/_inventoryimages/images/galleryLarge/ipod/carbon.jpg


It would be cool if the inverted the LCD display so it also was mostly black...

[polyesterlester]

It would be cool if the inverted the LCD display so it also was mostly black...

That would also be a drain on batteries. (although I agree that it would look cool, although maybe not as readable)

[Jaz]

Has anyone mentioned the idea of black on the back/chrome areas? We all know that the chrome is where you see the fingerprints and marks because it's reflective. Black & White is a nice motif and wouldn't be overly disruptive to manufacturing as the chrome section is 1 piece of the system, whereas you would 3 new pieces for the white section, grey scroll, and center button.

Also when Apple did the signature marketing (Tony Hawk, Madonna etc.) a while ago it was on the back where the laser engraving is normally.

Seems to me normal brand protection strategy would be to customise any area except the white face and scroll wheel. That's the iconic silhouette.

[toughboy]

I wonder who is benefitting more from this marketing U2 or Apple? I don't care what color the iPod is because it is usually hidden in my pocket.

well if this happens this will be a win-win game.. U2 is a great rock band and they will be promoted with this campaign and Apple is going to take the attention of U2-lover-PC-users..

But the question is will it happen??? if Apple is going to start releasing different colored iPods to different artists then they'll need a mass amount of colors.. :)

and well.. if Bono has got the black, what will Marilyn Manson (I hope I spelled his name right :rolleyes: ) get? I want my Guns iPod too :p

[Xtremehkr]

That's an idea, but how much bigger/heavier would that make an iPod?

I plug mine in whenever I am home to recharge it. So WiFi would make no difference unless it could recharge without wires as well, I would be plugging it into something. I think it is a great idea that it charges and recieves data from one connection, you still have to plug in the MP3 players with WiFi right?

I am sure that other companies are going to throw in all sorts of extras and goodies to differentiate themselves.

What I want is a click wheel that is incredibly dirt resistant. My pod goes everywhere with me and I hate having to clean the wheel all the time.

The Dell equivalent of the iPod looks similar to the stupid robot from Lost in Space. All it needs is arms and an internal speaker.

[Xtremehkr]

I thought the article stated that you would get U2's entire catalogue when you bought this album...?

[bartelby]

'... music player will come preloaded with the band's new album, How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb, along with portions of the Irish supergroup's 25-year catalogue.'

That means the new album and some of the back catalogue...

[aswitcher]

That would also be a drain on batteries. (although I agree that it would look cool, although maybe not as readable)

Are you sure? I thought LCD only drained what got shifted, not what got displayed...

[fatbarstard]

Well this has got to be the marketing coo od the year - guaranteed airplay for U2 everywhere given their super duper group status... plus back catlouge stuff as well...

this is THE radio promo made in hevean.... 'call now to wil stuff.. win a U2 iPod with all U2 stuff on it...' watch phone lines get jammed and cell site break under the strain

Hope this includes the stuff that doesn't suck like nothing from the Zoo Tour at all.... what were they thinking...

Still think One Tree Hill is one of their best songs but the hill doesn't have a tree on it anymore :(

Hope some make it out my way......

:rolleyes:

[mo0805]

i can't believe no one has cooked up any mini-style black ipods? come on guys, give me some hope. once i saw that the 4th gen ipods still had the chrome backs, i lost heart. :o

[tsaxer]

U2 is so old. Why should they get an iPod? Give it to up and coming talent or current talent....Not U2! Jeez, it's like just as bad as having an Aerosmith iPod...Old folks are not Apple's market.

You're being sarcastic right? I sure hope so.
Otherwise, think about the fact that some of the other partner companies that are working with the ipod tend to have older (over 25) primary markets. Specifically bmw and mercedes.

and _most_ teenie bobbers (you made me go there) don't just have 300+ to spend on ipods, though admittedly they do have a part to play in the sales. Still, don't count us 'old' folks out.

Now I'm 26 and maybe an old fogey, but come on, it's U2. :cool:

[zelmo]

I bet if you polled for the average age of the person who wants an iPod, you'd be around the 15-25 age range. If you polled for the average age of people who actually own one, I bet it is more like 25-35.
U2 may be getting a bit long in the tooth, but they are a good choice to launch targeted iPod sales campaigns such as this one. Their fan base are generally older and more likely to have $300 to buy an iPod.

Real question is...which band will be next?

Not my picks, but the color scheme seems obvious...

Prince = purple iPod
Rolling Stones = red iPod

[AndrewMT]

U2 tracks optional please.

[Corrupted]

You're mistaken

Instead of just saying I'm mistaken tell me why. Becuase last time I tried to sync my iPod that had music on it and no songs on my mac it deleted it.

[zac4mac]

Well, maybe I am not the usual fogey, and am quite the Apple whore, but I just bought my 5th iPod a few weeks ago - got a 4G 40GB, sold my 3G 15GB. Ordered the first one the day they were announced. BTW, I'll be 50 next month. If it's black, I'll buy it; already reanodized a mini in black.

Z

[U2Rules!]

I hope the black is not too shiny, a nice solid black, cool....U2 is the greatest, please include all tracks from their entire library.

[goodgolly]

Apple stores are closed - something tasty is on its way... :eek:

[tsaxer]

Probably the rumored ibooks, and possibly the low end G5 Powermac some have mentioned. We'll see in a little while!

[g4cubed]

Um...yeah...I'm pretty sure that's already happened...Oh well..
IMHO, I don't think they broke any agreements but isn't that what the courts will decide. :p

And for the black ipod I'll reserve judgement till I see it.

[g4cubed]

It's back up.
LOOK at those educational prices on the ibook. I'm off to the Apple store to purchase one. :D

[macnulty]

"Well, maybe I am not the usual fogey, and am quite the Apple whore, but I just bought my 5th iPod a few weeks ago - got a 4G 40GB, sold my 3G 15GB. Ordered the first one the day they were announced. BTW, I'll be 50 next month. If it's black, I'll buy it; already reanodized a mini in black."

Got me beat, 42 and just finished filling my 10g iPod. Black iPod would look cool but not fit product image. Unless they believe white has run its course and has become pass and are in need to Think Different, of course a limited edition would open a flood gate of opportunity. BeamerPod, TrekPod, CampyPod?

[xyian]

I think it's a good marketing tactic on Apple's behalf. If they figure out people like the colored normal iPods then they can start to sell more of them in different colors to take to people's preferences.

As for U2....they're the Rolling Stones of our generation. They should have given up the music portion of it and gone on to better endeavors in their respective lives. Some people just don't know when to hang it up!

[jackieonasses]

i can't believe no one has cooked up any mini-style black ipods? come on guys, give me some hope. once i saw that the 4th gen ipods still had the chrome backs, i lost heart. :o if you would read the whole thread....

[sinisterdesign]

gotta admit, i think a black/chrome iPod would look very classy. the white is, of course, iconic now, but this is limited edition. i have a harder time w/ the headphones, though. as some have said, they are the telltale sign that you're an iPodder. i use some black Sony's right now just b/c they sound better (want the ShureE-3's, but holding off for a color iPod!), but i hate the way they look w/ my 2nd gen iPod.

couple more opinions:

- i think a black mini would sell (even more) like mad

- love U2, hate the new song. don't think the ipod video works that well, either. eh, it's OK.

[Super Dave]

This all sounds like a load of crap to me. If I was a journalist invited out to hear about limited edition black iPods preloaded with U2 music and I actually wasted my day on such a lamo story, I'd want them to pay my travelling expenses. This is obviously only a minor minor part to whatever is being revealed next week.

So:

-Black iPod with U2 music, lame.
-European/Canadian/Asian iTunes, who cares? Everyone knows its coming, aside from people who live in those countries (like me), noone cares. It's not worth an invite only press gig.
-New colour screen iPod…this I could believe. It would have to be somewhat fantastic though in order to be worth this sort of press shindig. The 4G ones definitely were nothing to write home about.

So for my two cents, they'll release the new iPod, maybe some of the other stuff, but also at least one thing no one expects. Maybe they'll start selling music videos, or…movies. You know its coming, whether they'll end up on iPods or not. Can anyone imagine the visualizer changing to an attached (but separate file) music video when it opens certain songs in iTunes? Now, that would be sweet.

David :cool:

[earthtoandy]

i want a purple ipod mini!

[sinisterdesign]

This all sounds like a load of crap to me. ...
-New colour screen iPod…this I could believe. It would have to be somewhat fantastic though in order to be worth this sort of press shindig. The 4G ones definitely were nothing to write home about.


yeah, i was debating that w/ a friend yesterday. it does seem like an awfully high profile event for what amounts to be a colored ipod. i think the black will LOOK cool, but does it really warrant bono & the edge popping in to promo it??

i'm trying not to get my hopes up that they're releasing the colorPod next week, but that would be really really cool.

[Hlau]

A black iPod would go well with B&O headphones

[serpico]

Here's a black ipod if you haven't seen one:

http://www.colorwarepc.com/gallery/iPod/carbon.htm

My wife is a huge U2 fan and is waiting to get one when it comes out. The big fans will buy this, not sure about others.

[serpico]

What are you guys talking about ?
That song Vertigo is sweet, with an old rebel indie rock sound. I'm not a huge fan like my wife, but they have had some great stuff since the '80's. I wonder if this limited edition ipod will only sell in the US ? Would mean making a trip across the border to pick one up. :rolleyes:

[iEric]

Ew. that looks really tacky.
Remember: Its only a rumor. so don't hold ur breath for one!

Here's a black ipod if you haven't seen one:

http://www.colorwarepc.com/gallery/iPod/carbon.htm

My wife is a huge U2 fan and is waiting to get one when it comes out. The big fans will buy this, not sure about others.

[zakee00]

i've never really listened to U2, but i like the idea. I hope Apple makes other limited edition iPods for other bands *crosses fingers*

[mo0805]

I wonder if this limited edition ipod will only sell in the US ? Would mean making a trip across the border to pick one up. :rolleyes:

U2 isn't a country-specific band so why would their iPod be any different? :p

[Phat_Pat]

Here's a black ipod if you haven't seen one:

http://www.colorwarepc.com/gallery/iPod/carbon.htm

My wife is a huge U2 fan and is waiting to get one when it comes out. The big fans will buy this, not sure about others.

as long as it doesn't have U2 written all across it (or the guys face on the back) then it might be somewhat cool.

Another idea is that black is only one (of many) colors. Maybe the black iPod will be special but other colors (red green blue i dunno colors!) will just be standard.

Another thing maybe the u2Pod will ship with band extras (DVD, poster, hardcopy of CD, carring case, ect) and may cost a little extra..... :confused:

just a thought.....

[HiRez]

What would be really cool is if it included (or included gift certificates for downloading) all songs from every U2 studio album encoded in Apple Lossless format (bonus points for direct from master encoding). I'd buy that in a second. And black and silver sounds spiffy to me, especially if the black were really nice laquered black metal instead of plastic. Hopefully it won't have some big ugly U2 logo on it, keep it simple and elegant.

[krossfyter]

U2 is so old. Why should they get an iPod? Give it to up and coming talent or current talent....Not U2! Jeez, it's like just as bad as having an Aerosmith iPod...Old folks are not Apple's market.



old, yet they still continue to put out music thats creatively relevant and far superior then most new acts today.. unlike aerosmith. its not my fault you are ignorant about U2s impact.


whats your new favorit band? good charlotte?


lol

[krossfyter]

and what this deal with people dissing on u2? anything post 90 is not as good as pre 90? oh come on now. for those of you who say that....if you all cant sit here and tell me why u2s music has changed, how it has changed and comment on their uncanny ability to tap into that creativity pool like they were a new and relevant band... then you have no business dissing on u2. because you know what... that would make you ignorant. its one thing not to like u2 (because people have their preferences) but its another thing to talk like a certain part of u2s catalogue is bad (contemporary stuff here) and not no anything about it. just not liking it because it doesnt sound like their old stuff doesnt cut it. fact is.... U2 has been one of the most creatively relevant bands that has been around for a long ass time. who else can top them? kiss, aerosmith, rollingstones???? yeah right... while these bands are awesome and respectable they dont have that creative drive that u2 has... hence why most of their music today sounds exactly like their old music.

if i were to name one band that continues to progress and push it like u2 it would be rush. there are obvious differences between the bands but as far as continuing to be relevant they share a lot of similarities.

[krossfyter]

As for U2....they're the Rolling Stones of our generation. They should have given up the music portion of it and gone on to better endeavors in their respective lives. Some people just don't know when to hang it up!


you have absolutely no idea do you?


its like its fashionable not to like u2 because they have been around for a long ass time. give me a effen break here. u2 is still pushing their sound... rolling stones isn't. id like to see any of these bands today.... be it good ones like radiohead or whoever still being able to be around with the same members much less push their music 25 yrs from now.
thats hard to do.

rollingstones needs to hang it up. they sound the same. u2 is constantly changing and evolving. thats why we have people here making value judgments on their music post 90. there is a reason why u2 is being touted as the "best rock band in the world". thats not just there for cosmetic reasons i can guarantee that. they have managed to pull of things in the music industry that only the Beatles can claim they have done (all respect due to the Beatles... not saying U2 is better in any way). my point is.... who can top U2 other then the Beatles (because obviously they far surpass U2)? No one... or its hard to think of someone that can.

[krossfyter]

and with that i say....

i hope the new ipod comes with u2s logo on it or whatever the case maybe. put bonos or the "edges" mug all over that screen... because i'll buy it for sure. there are a lot of U2 fans out there and it would probably increase apple ipod sales because of it. this band is a "world band"... not like most bands out there.



if you dont want a u2/ipod... well dont get it... its not like there isnt another option. jebus. quite your whining and just let it be.

[longofest]

CNN is now echoing the Forbes and ThinkSecret rumors, claiming their own sources. For credit's sake, lets all just make sure that everyone knows that ThinkSecret broke this story first. Those guys are incredibly accurate, and deserve a heck of a lot of credit for their investigative work.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/10/19/music.u2.reut/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/10/19/music.u2.reut/index.html

[StealthRider]

Hmm interesting thought I would guess no. I don't think black on Silver would look so good maybe the bottom will be black too.

I have a Colorware Carbon black iPod (4G), and the black on silver looks awesome. Don't worry about that...

[asif786]

The other U2/Apple Event thread is dead, so I'm gonna post this here:

On the 26th, I reckon that Apple is gonna announce they are launching a new record label...and U2 Is their first signing...plus they've also bought another record label (maybe universal?) to get the ball rolling.

They will also announce that the new record label has bought Apple Corps Ltd. for a crazy amount (£100million?) and they are know the exclusive holders of the beatles catalogue. It will available on iTMS. Today.

Of course, my theory is fairly crazy, but in some ways parts of it are believable. We know that Steve loves mixing with the hollywood crowd, so a music company wouldnt be to unbelievable.Apple was, a while ago, in talks with universal records. We know that there has been a rumor of Apple paying off the apple corps with a crazy amount.

Also, something which may be of relevance - a few artists have recently just disappeared of iTMS. Usher, Britney spears, Black eyed peas (!) have all gone of iTMS (USA) in the past week or so. Could this be because they have been signed up to the new label and need to be re-added to iTMS?

I know it's crazy, but it could happen. One day. :)

[reorx]

Old folks are not Apple's market.

I'm old, and love Apple and like U2... Plus, because I'm old, I have a lot more disposable income than your average 18-22 yr old, so I'm more likely to spend at the ITMS or buy Macs...

Age is relative my friend...

[aswitcher]

The other U2/Apple Event thread is dead, so I'm gonna post this here:

On the 26th, I reckon that Apple is gonna announce they are launching a new record label...and U2 Is their first signing...plus they've also bought another record label (maybe universal?) to get the ball rolling.

They will also announce that the new record label has bought Apple Corps Ltd. for a crazy amount (£100million?) and they are know the exclusive holders of the beatles catalogue. It will available on iTMS. Today.

Of course, my theory is fairly crazy, but in some ways parts of it are believable. We know that Steve loves mixing with the hollywood crowd, so a music company wouldnt be to unbelievable.Apple was, a while ago, in talks with universal records. We know that there has been a rumor of Apple paying off the apple corps with a crazy amount.

Also, something which may be of relevance - a few artists have recently just disappeared of iTMS. Usher, Britney spears, Black eyed peas (!) have all gone of iTMS (USA) in the past week or so. Could this be because they have been signed up to the new label and need to be re-added to iTMS?

I know it's crazy, but it could happen. One day. :)

Its an interesting theory. It would perhaps deal with one big problem and harden up Apple's future in online music...

Not long to go now...

[krossfyter]

I'm old, and love Apple and like U2... Plus, because I'm old, I have a lot more disposable income than your average 18-22 yr old, so I'm more likely to spend at the ITMS or buy Macs...

Age is relative my friend...


this guy that you are qouting acts like u2 is as old as mozart. if he know the demographics of who actually listens to U2 he wouldnt make such a statement. U2 is by in large listened to by people in thier 20s and 30s. im in my 20s and more times then none the people who respect U2 are seasoned music listeners.... people who have been around but still are young to an extent... in contrast with those who are very young and think "all american rejects" is top notch advanced music.
also the people who listen to U2 (which are a hell of a lot) have more income then those "younguns" that listen to that cheap ass crap of sum 41 or good charlotte (generally speaking). apple is doing great with this U2 thing. its an awsome and smart move. after all there is a good reason apple picked U2 and not anyone else. i bet most of (if not all) of these people who are dissen on U2 have no understanding of thier impact and continue to jump on the "u2 is old therefore not good" bandwagon because its fasionable.




:rolleyes:

[~Shard~]

The other U2/Apple Event thread is dead, so I'm gonna post this here:

On the 26th, I reckon that Apple is gonna announce they are launching a new record label...and U2 Is their first signing...plus they've also bought another record label (maybe universal?) to get the ball rolling.

They will also announce that the new record label has bought Apple Corps Ltd. for a crazy amount (£100million?) and they are know the exclusive holders of the beatles catalogue. It will available on iTMS. Today.

Of course, my theory is fairly crazy, but in some ways parts of it are believable. We know that Steve loves mixing with the hollywood crowd, so a music company wouldnt be to unbelievable.Apple was, a while ago, in talks with universal records. We know that there has been a rumor of Apple paying off the apple corps with a crazy amount.

Also, something which may be of relevance - a few artists have recently just disappeared of iTMS. Usher, Britney spears, Black eyed peas (!) have all gone of iTMS (USA) in the past week or so. Could this be because they have been signed up to the new label and need to be re-added to iTMS?

I know it's crazy, but it could happen. One day. :)

Interesting theory - parts of it may come true in some form. I didn't realize that BEP has since been removed from iTMS - I find this surprising, as "Hey Mama" was used in an iPod video and they were featured heavily in the new iMac video along with "Let's Get Retarded". Interesting, maybe something's afoot...

[JGowan]

People comparing U2 to The Rolling Stones (in a negative "when are they going to quit" context) have no clue. Bono was born May 1960 (he's just turned 44, people!) The Rolling Stones have been around since about 1963 -- twenty years longer.

But, while some on this board are wishing the Stones a quick farewell, be aware that their sales even in the past 15 years have been seriously AMAZING. Obviously those few here aren't really in charge of what's HOT and what's NOT.

"Since 1989 alone--the beginning of the modern age of the Rolling Stones --the band has generated more than $1.5 billion in gross revenues." - Sept 2002

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/18/114923.php

Bottomline, if the band is having a great time and there is a demand to hear them, why would anyone want someone to quit doing what they love doing simply so you don't have to hear about them anymore? Sounds like a very selfish attitude to me. Live and let live.

I say "ROCK ON".

[krossfyter]

People comparing U2 to The Rolling Stones (in a negative "when are they going to quit" context) have no clue. Bono was born May 1960 (he's just turned 44, people!) The Rolling Stones have been around since about 1963 -- twenty years longer.

But, while some on this board are wishing the Stones a quick farewell, be aware that their sales even in the past 15 years have been seriously AMAZING. Obviously those few here aren't really in charge of what's HOT and what's NOT.

"Since 1989 alone--the beginning of the modern age of the Rolling Stones --the band has generated more than $1.5 billion in gross revenues." - Sept 2002

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/18/114923.php




Bottomline, if the band is having a great time and there is a demand to hear them, why would anyone want someone to quit doing what they love doing simply so you don't have to hear about them anymore? Sounds like a very selfish attitude to me. Live and let live.

I say "ROCK ON".


good point. i respect your preference. i believe though that they should hang it up. "is it better to burn out or fade away?"

imagine if apple went with the rollingstones here. then these peoples geriatric case could be legitimate.... but U2? hell no. U2 is still ALIVE.

[HiRez]

On the 26th, I reckon that Apple is gonna announce they are launching a new record label...and U2 Is their first signing...plus they've also bought another record label (maybe universal?) to get the ball rolling.

They will also announce that the new record label has bought Apple Corps Ltd. for a crazy amount (£100million?) and they are know the exclusive holders of the beatles catalogue. It will available on iTMS. Today.Heh, I like your crazy theory, especially how you took care of that pesky legal problem, but the problems I see are: a) would Apple Corps and the estateholders of The Beatles sell to Apple? and b) would Apple be willing to part with much or all of their warchest to complete sucha a transaction (buying Universal)? Based on Steve's previous comments I'd have to say no. He's said he specifically wants that money to be there when times get tough, which doesn't sound like it's all available for a purchase. But hey, crazier things have happened. It would be an incredibly bold move that sure would shake up both the computer and music industries (and the film & video industry if it included Universal Pictures...hmm, new Pixar distributer as well?)

[dprlynch]

The other U2/Apple Event thread is dead, so I'm gonna post this here:

On the 26th, I reckon that Apple is gonna announce they are launching a new record label...and U2 Is their first signing...plus they've also bought another record label (maybe universal?) to get the ball rolling.

They will also announce that the new record label has bought Apple Corps Ltd. for a crazy amount (£100million?) and they are know the exclusive holders of the beatles catalogue. It will available on iTMS. Today.

Of course, my theory is fairly crazy, but in some ways parts of it are believable. We know that Steve loves mixing with the hollywood crowd, so a music company wouldnt be to unbelievable.Apple was, a while ago, in talks with universal records. We know that there has been a rumor of Apple paying off the apple corps with a crazy amount.

Also, something which may be of relevance - a few artists have recently just disappeared of iTMS. Usher, Britney spears, Black eyed peas (!) have all gone of iTMS (USA) in the past week or so. Could this be because they have been signed up to the new label and need to be re-added to iTMS?

I know it's crazy, but it could happen. One day. :)

It would be great if they bought Apple Corps and had the Beatles music exclusively - it would drive the other online stores insane and give iTMS a very definite edge on the market.

As for the disappearing artists (Black Eyed Peas, Usher, Britney Spears), where did you get the idea that they were missing? I just checked iTMS and all three of them are there with multiple albums each.

[asif786]

As for the disappearing artists (Black Eyed Peas, Usher, Britney Spears), where did you get the idea that they were missing? I just checked iTMS and all three of them are there with multiple albums each.

Hi,

Yep, they all seem to be back now (after a week). They came back today. Maybe Steve Jobs saw my post and indicated the iTMS staff to get it back pronto.. :eek: (well, i can dream cant I? :o ) lol

[Steamboatwillie]

This sounds cool, but I wonder how you will get the pre-loaded songs off the iPod into iTunes on your computer? Imagine if the first time you synced it up it erased all the U2 music with your iTunes library. Maybe there will be copies of the songs on the data part of the iPod, or is there some new two-way syncing going on?

edit: doh, not fast enough with my question! Corrupted beat me to it.

Here's an absurdly simple solution. Put a copy of the CD in with the packaging. Then you can rip it yourself over and over again, if one was so inclined.

[asif786]

Here's an absurdly simple solution. Put a copy of the CD in with the packaging. Then you can rip it yourself over and over again, if one was so inclined.

Apple arent allowed to physically distribute music because of their lawsuit with Apple Corps (the beatles).

[JGowan]

good point. i respect your preference. i believe though that they should hang it up. "is it better to burn out or fade away?"Thanks. But, I still don't think you get it... OVER 1.5 BILLION in 15 years... that's 150 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR! Many, many millions of people still LOVE the Stones. Why on Earth should they "hang it up"? Just 'cause you think so... please.

150 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR (YEAR!!) is not fading away by any stretch of the imagination. If you had any logic, I might listen, but you give no reason for your "belief".

PS... that's 12.5 MILLION PER MONTH! Fade away, my @S$

[Rantipole]

Apple arent allowed to physically distribute music because of their lawsuit with Apple Corps (the beatles).
Kinda OT, but...

Seriously, that is the stupidest lawsuit ever. G--D--- lawyers with nothing better to do. "Oh, wait there's a computer company named Apple. But, what about the Beatles? I'm so confused!!!" I'm mean, really!!!

[krossfyter]

Thanks. But, I still don't think you get it... OVER 1.5 BILLION in 15 years... that's 150 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR! Many, many millions of people still LOVE the Stones. Why on Earth should they "hang it up"? Just 'cause you think so... please.

150 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR (YEAR!!) is not fading away by any stretch of the imagination. If you had any logic, I might listen, but you give no reason for your "belief".

PS... that's 12.5 MILLION PER MONTH! Fade away, my @S$


you can still be non creative (live off your past creativity) and still sell like a madman... look at kiss.

should this be a reason not to quit or fade away?



what this becomes or turns into is "novelty".


rollingstones shouldnt be novel. they should be progressive.
and to me if a band isnt... they should hang it up.
thats my preference. ***** the money.


:)

[myapplseedshurt]

Interesting theory - parts of it may come true in some form. I didn't realize that BEP has since been removed from iTMS - I find this surprising, as "Hey Mama" was used in an iPod video and they were featured heavily in the new iMac video along with "Let's Get Retarded". Interesting, maybe something's afoot...

I just went to iTMS, and pulled up all BEP's stuff.... no conspiracy theories here....

[asif786]

I just went to iTMS, and pulled up all BEP's stuff.... no conspiracy theories here....

Like I said, Steve's men in white coats came and put it all back :( :D ;)

There's so many possibilities for this music event on the 26th now that it's crazy. new flash ipod, u2 ipod, apple record label, new itms countries.. :D

Gonna be a cool week methinks.

[JGowan]

you can still be non creative (live off your past creativity) and still sell like a madman... look at kiss.

should this be a reason not to quit or fade away?

what this becomes or turns into is "novelty".

rollingstones shouldnt be novel. they should be progressive.
and to me if a band isnt... they should hang it up.
thats my preference. ***** the money.:)

No. No. No.

#1: Personally, for the record, I have NO Stones tracks in an iTunes collection of over 20,000 tracks -- I don't really care for them. But, that doesn't mean I don't recognize that MANY MILLIONS of people think they are awesome. As long as The Stones are making millions happy and they are enjoying themselves (and seriously "banking") then they should do what they do.

#2: Please don't compare KISS with THE STONES. Not the same. KISS only WISHES they were half the band and making a mere fraction of the money that The Stones are making.

#3: Novelty VS Progressive. Again,... that's YOUR opinion. I don't think it's your place to tell THE STONES what they SHOULD be. Obviously they are filling a huge "need" for millions of people that would defend their choice for liking THE STONES to the death.

You talk about progressive. Really GOOD music doesn't have to be so-called "progressive", with the artist constantly trying to change his sound. Many wish THE BEATLES were around to play their old songs. ELVIS would be having screaming fans there to hear him sing his old music. THE DOORS would have the Welcome Mat in front of them. The older you get, you'll see that music sometimes doesn't have to be anything other than what it is. For many Stones fans, their music simply reminds them of a wonderful time in their life when they were younger and "life was good"... what's wrong with that?

#4: You say "***** the money"... I say that the MONEY IS THE PROOF that you are wrong. If the band truly was an embarrasement and their music wasn't good, people would stop going to see them and buying their stuff. The very fact that they are making SO MUCH CASH is a huge indicator that they are doing something right. Music is SO SUBJECTIVE - so for you to say "this one can stay and that one should go" is ridiculous.

I don't like most COUNTRY, RAP, most OPERA, most ALTERNATIVE, PUNK, most FOLK, HIP HOP, most METAL or HILLBILLY SWING -- But...

... I realize that Music is a personal choice so I'm not going to Damn all of the bands that play this music and think they should all just fall off the planet or go back to sacking groceries at the local QuickieMart. How freaking boring would the world be if most music was the same or if One person could delegate who got to make it?

#5: Live and Let Live. If you don't like the music, just change the dial.

[mhouse]

I'm confused by the comments that Apple *can't* release a flash-based iPod for 99 or 149.

Wasn't the drive in the mini something like 300 bucks when it first came out? I remember stories of people buying them to break them open and get the drive out of them. And yet Apple was able to sell the mini for 249.What am I missing?

I think the more relevant question is...will Apple *choose* to do it? I think that the whole digital music game could be locked up if they did. But who knows? Apple has been reluctant to aggressively pursue their advantages in the past.

[MacinDoc]

I'm confused by the comments that Apple *can't* release a flash-based iPod for 99 or 149.

Wasn't the drive in the mini something like 300 bucks when it first came out? I remember stories of people buying them to break them open and get the drive out of them. And yet Apple was able to sell the mini for 249.What am I missing?

I think the more relevant question is...will Apple *choose* to do it? I think that the whole digital music game could be locked up if they did. But who knows? Apple has been reluctant to aggressively pursue their advantages in the past.
Apple certainly didn't pay $300 for the drives, because they were purchased in bulk. Apple's large order for these may have even contributed to their high initial cost by severely restricting their supply...

Apple will never sell iPods at a loss, because the hardware is where the real money is made in the music download business right now. iTunes is really a vehicle to sell more iPods.

Now, I do think Apple might introduce a $149 iPod, but it would have < 1 GB of Flash at that price.

Back on topic, considering that this special edition iPod is supposed to come with U2 tunes pre-loaded, I suspect it will be a slightly more expensive version of the 40 GB model.

[Rantipole]

Back on topic, considering that this special edition iPod is supposed to come with U2 tunes pre-loaded, I suspect it will be a slightly more expensive version of the 40 GB model.
Yes, I read somewhere that it will be $30 more than a non-U2 iPod.

[liketom]

yuk not too sure about this one lol

[krossfyter]

No. No. No.

#1: Personally, for the record, I have NO Stones tracks in an iTunes collection of over 20,000 tracks -- I don't really care for them. But, that doesn't mean I don't recognize that MANY MILLIONS of people think they are awesome. As long as The Stones are making millions happy and they are enjoying themselves (and seriously "banking") then they should do what they do.

#2: Please don't compare KISS with THE STONES. Not the same. KISS only WISHES they were half the band and making a mere fraction of the money that The Stones are making.

#3: Novelty VS Progressive. Again,... that's YOUR opinion. I don't think it's your place to tell THE STONES what they SHOULD be. Obviously they are filling a huge "need" for millions of people that would defend their choice for liking THE STONES to the death.

You talk about progressive. Really GOOD music doesn't have to be so-called "progressive", with the artist constantly trying to change his sound. Many wish THE BEATLES were around to play their old songs. ELVIS would be having screaming fans there to hear him sing his old music. THE DOORS would have the Welcome Mat in front of them. The older you get, you'll see that music sometimes doesn't have to be anything other than what it is. For many Stones fans, their music simply reminds them of a wonderful time in their life when they were younger and "life was good"... what's wrong with that?

#4: You say "***** the money"... I say that the MONEY IS THE PROOF that you are wrong. If the band truly was an embarrasement and their music wasn't good, people would stop going to see them and buying their stuff. The very fact that they are making SO MUCH CASH is a huge indicator that they are doing something right. Music is SO SUBJECTIVE - so for you to say "this one can stay and that one should go" is ridiculous.

I don't like most COUNTRY, RAP, most OPERA, most ALTERNATIVE, PUNK, most FOLK, HIP HOP, most METAL or HILLBILLY SWING -- But...

... I realize that Music is a personal choice so I'm not going to Damn all of the bands that play this music and think they should all just fall off the planet or go back to sacking groceries at the local QuickieMart. How freaking boring would the world be if most music was the same or if One person could delegate who got to make it?

#5: Live and Let Live. If you don't like the music, just change the dial.


i think we just have to agree to disagree generally speaking.

im not saying that just because my opinion says the stones should hang it up meana that i should be so inclined to tell them what to do. according to my opinion about bands and artists they should hang it up... according to my philosophy.... but by no means am i trying to dictate thier musical life. they have every right to keep on doing what they are doing regardless of public opinion or whatnot.

also... you seem to make the correlation that just because they make so much damn money thats proof they should not stop and that that makes thier music good. i really beg to differ here. money doesnt make the music.. and it shouldnt. good music can be made without huge profit. most good music that comes out is underground and raw at first and the musicians are starving. i mean if we went with your idea of money making the music better then hell brittney spears is making good music. not trying to equate spears with the stones just trying to get the point across to you about the money issue.

look if the stones do hang it up... they still will sell. people will still have thier music to listen to for thier entire lives.. just like the beatles. it doesnt take anything away from the stones or the fan base. you can still listen to thier music regardless if they arent touring or making tour money or money from the new albums they put out. you said "The older you get, you'll see that music sometimes doesn't have to be anything other than what it is. For many Stones fans, their music simply reminds them of a wonderful time in their life when they were younger and "life was good"... what's wrong with that?"

nothing is wrong with that.... that can still happen even if the stones hang it up. so i dont see your point... its not like i was trying to take thier appreciation away from the fan base.


also... true really good music doesnt have to be progressive. if i said really good music has to be progressive i can only do this from a subjective standpoint and not an objective one. this is an opinion... personal.


to me if u2 wasnt progressive in my eyes and most of thier music sounded like it did on the october or achtung albums over and over then i personally think they should drop it. but they dont do that... they continuiously tweak thier sound to be relavent and progressive like no other band. thats why people complain about thier new stuff because it doesnt sound like thier old stuff. i dont see much of that going on with the stones... because the stones stick with the same formula (which is fine for them). u2 seems to have this never ending pool of creativity that they reach into... thats phenominal. because of this they arent novel (like the stones are too me).... because of this to me they should keep on going untill that pool dries up. thats my opinion... and i dare not dictate it on anyone... but i can share my opinion like i did with the stones. you dont hold to this philosophy... and i dont expect you to.. you are your own person... but just because you dont agree with me doesnt mean i cant have my own opinion. this is all opinion based.... i think you are thinking im saying it as if its fact or absolute.


yes the stones are a damned good band... one of the best bands of all time... going down like that.... so dont get me wrong.... but just because this is so doesnt mean i cant have my opinion that they should call it quits.

i also think kiss and aerosmith should hang it up to for the same reasons. lol


the only old band i think should keep on going because they continue to be progressive and relevant and not novel is RUSH.

[Ugg]

you can still be non creative (live off your past creativity) and still sell like a madman... look at kiss.

should this be a reason not to quit or fade away?

what this becomes or turns into is "novelty".
rollingstones shouldnt be novel. they should be progressive.
and to me if a band isnt... they should hang it up.
thats my preference. ***** the money.

:)

What bothers me about your statement is your belief that anyone, musician, painter, writer; or more simply put, human being, should just shrivel up and die because the peak of their productivity has passed. It just seems wrong when applied to artists and horrifying when applied to people in general. The staying power of the Stones is incredible, not only that they continue to make music but they have stayed together as a group for so long. I think that is admirable if not progressive per your definition.

By placing music and musicians on a gilded pedestal you are telling people that if music doesn't attain the standards you've set then it ceases to be music. I don't buy it but neither will I buy U2 because they have, IMMHO, sold out in a way the Stones never have. Just my dos centavos.

[krossfyter]

What bothers me about your statement is your belief that anyone, musician, painter, writer; or more simply put, human being, should just shrivel up and die because the peak of their productivity has passed. It just seems wrong when applied to artists and horrifying when applied to people in general. The staying power of the Stones is incredible, not only that they continue to make music but they have stayed together as a group for so long. I think that is admirable if not progressive per your definition.

By placing music and musicians on a gilded pedestal you are telling people that if music doesn't attain the standards you've set then it ceases to be music. I don't buy it but neither will I buy U2 because they have, IMMHO, sold out in a way the Stones never have. Just my dos centavos.

seems like your inacting your hate and disdain for u2 on me and my opinion. untill you can seperate the two i dont think we can have a good discussion. i hope im wrong.

i said it was my opinion. i'll let your opinion of u2 stand and who am i to try and convience you otherwise? same for you... let my opinion of the stones stand.

im an artist myself so i am in no way pontificating. if i ever become novel... im going to hang it up too. its my opinion let it be.

[Giantred]

im an artist myself so i am in no way pontificating. if i ever become novel... im going to hang it up too. its my opinion let it be.

.....We are gonna have to quote you on that one ;) !

Corey

[Ugg]

seems like your inacting your hate and disdain for u2 on me and my opinion. untill you can seperate the two i dont think we can have a good discussion. i hope im wrong.

i said it was my opinion. i'll let your opinion of u2 stand and who am i to try and convience you otherwise? same for you... let my opinion of the stones stand.

im an artist myself so i am in no way pontificating. if i ever become novel... im going to hang it up too. its my opinion let it be.

You are wrong, U2 had a powerful impact on me during a certain period of my life. I no longer find their music to my liking and it seems, IMO, that they are geared towards the commercial as opposed to the artistic.

My issue isn't with U2 and the Stones, it's about some insane notion that musicians and artists in general should always be progressive and that when they reach some point where you or some so-called critic no longer thinks they are "progressive" then they should hang it up.

I thought artistic expression was extremely personal? Should someone who is no longer progressive be told to stop expressing himself because that expression is no longer viewed as relevant? Isn't that directly opposed to the whole idea of artistic expression? While I think the idea of ART is way too broad these days, I think that expressing oneself artistically, whether or not one receives critical or popular acclaim is a wonderful idea and more people should engage in it. However, when people like you decide that artistic expression is only valid within certain parameters then you are denying that individual the opportunity to express whatever it was that he wanted to express. Critical or popular acclaim are irrelevant to the "true" artist, what's important is the self-expression.

I make no claims about the Stones or U2's desires or needs but they are doing what any artist wants to do, create something special, who are you to judge much less tell them to hang it up? Do I smell burning books?

It's perfectly acceptable to say you don't like something it's something else to tell another human being that their expression is novel and therefore irrelevant.

[krossfyter]

You are wrong, U2 had a powerful impact on me during a certain period of my life. I no longer find their music to my liking and it seems, IMO, that they are geared towards the commercial as opposed to the artistic.

your opinion. not mine. i respect yours... respect mine. for all i care you could say they should call it quits too. you wont see me here trying to change your opinion. i may post with reasons why they shouldnt but ill leave it at that. see my point? i hope so.


My issue isn't with U2 and the Stones, it's about some insane notion that musicians and artists in general should always be progressive and that when they reach some point where you or some so-called critic no longer thinks they are "progressive" then they should hang it up.

I thought artistic expression was extremely personal? Should someone who is no longer progressive be told to stop expressing himself because that expression is no longer viewed as relevant? Isn't that directly opposed to the whole idea of artistic expression? While I think the idea of ART is way too broad these days, I think that expressing oneself artistically, whether or not one receives critical or popular acclaim is a wonderful idea and more people should engage in it. However, when people like you decide that artistic expression is only valid within certain parameters then you are denying that individual the opportunity to express whatever it was that he wanted to express. Critical or popular acclaim are irrelevant to the "true" artist, what's important is the self-expression.

I make no claims about the Stones or U2's desires or needs but they are doing what any artist wants to do, create something special, who are you to judge much less tell them to hang it up? Do I smell burning books?

i am someone with an opinion as are you. your post is completly opinionated and there isnt any ounce of objectivism in it... fine with me. see my point? i hope. respect mine as i respect yours. we may not agree but that isnt the point.




It's perfectly acceptable to say you don't like something it's something else to tell another human being that their expression is novel and therefore irrelevant.

again... magic word "opinion".

in case i havent made this clear to you...this is a subjective issue.

thanks for playing.




:)

[krossfyter]

.....We are gonna have to quote you on that one ;) !

Corey


remember me. write that ***** down. im not in this world for the money. if i feel im not progressive anymore... im out. whats the use? i feel my art shouldnt be dependent on capatalism strictly... i feel it should come from a person who isnt geared toward making money. because thats a sell out to me.


again... opinion. my own.

[Ugg]

remember me. write that ***** down. im not in this world for the money. if i feel im not progressive anymore... im out. whats the use? i feel my art shouldnt be dependent on capatalism strictly... i feel it should come from a person who isnt geared toward making money. because thats a sell out to me.


again... opinion. my own.

Ahhhh, so what it's all about is self-analysis and each artist should be the arbiter of his own progressiveness or lack thereof. So, if only you can decide whether or not your "art" is progressive or not, why are you judging other artists so harshly? We all are entitled to our own opinions but in your own words only you can judge yourself.

Art has always been about self-expression first and survival second. History is littered with artists who sold their works or did work that they didn't want to do in order to feed themselves and their families. Does that invalidate their work? Would you like to see the eradication of all art that was "capitalistic" ?

Ideals are wonderful and I'm glad that you have them but idealism can't feed you, nor put a roof over your head or clothes on your back.

[krossfyter]

Ahhhh, so what it's all about is self-analysis and each artist should be the arbiter of his own progressiveness or lack thereof. So, if only you can decide whether or not your "art" is progressive or not, why are you judging other artists so harshly? We all are entitled to our own opinions but in your own words only you can judge yourself.

Art has always been about self-expression first and survival second. History is littered with artists who sold their works or did work that they didn't want to do in order to feed themselves and their families. Does that invalidate their work? Would you like to see the eradication of all art that was "capitalistic" ?

Ideals are wonderful and I'm glad that you have them but idealism can't feed you, nor put a roof over your head or clothes on your back.



paul robeson

[krossfyter]

Ahhhh, so what it's all about is self-analysis and each artist should be the arbiter of his own progressiveness or lack thereof. So, if only you can decide whether or not your "art" is progressive or not, why are you judging other artists so harshly? We all are entitled to our own opinions but in your own words only you can judge yourself.

i can hold an opinion can't I? That doesnt mean that said opinion has to be followed by the subject i am holding one about. They are subject to thier own opinions. I hope this is clear to you.


Art has always been about self-expression first and survival second. History is littered with artists who sold their works or did work that they didn't want to do in order to feed themselves and their families. Does that invalidate their work? Would you like to see the eradication of all art that was "capitalistic" ?

doesnt invalidate thier work at all... i never said that. what i question is whether that work is progressive or not. most of the time it isnt because its what the mainstream wants and the mainstream wants stuff they know. most of the artists who did work progressively got recongnized for it later. case in point.... picassos painting "Les Damoiselles d'Avignon (1907)" was rejected by the mainstream untill ten years after he made it. It became the first pivotal piece of cubism. Now if Picasso held to the "Cannon" of the time ... painting Matisse like works and focused on money he wouldnt have painted Les Damoiselles d'Avignon... and one wonders where art would be right now. People argue that Braque would have done it eventually but even he wasnt focused on money and the mainstream at the time.


Ideals are wonderful and I'm glad that you have them but idealism can't feed you, nor put a roof over your head or clothes on your back.

thats the problem. capatalism doesnt have a social conscience. and the negative effects of such we are seeing a lot today. its a monster that doesnt give a ***** about you or me just the almighty dollar. while it can create some positive things it has done a lot of harm and its this harm thats caused by it that we have to step back and try to fix.

thats a whole other topic anyways.... i know you dont agree i dont expect you too... we will go in cirlces.... please just let me have my opinion and you can have yours. if you can't respect my opinion then we cant discuss this in a civil fashion.

[Ugg]

doesnt invalidate thier work at all... i never said that. what i question is whether that work is progressive or not. most of the time it isnt because its what the mainstream wants and the mainstream wants stuff they know. most of the artists who did work progressively got recongnized for it later. case in point.... picassos painting "Les Damoiselles d'Avignon (1907)" was rejected by the mainstream untill ten years after he made it. It became the first pivotal piece of cubism. Now if Picasso held to the "Cannon" of the time ... painting Matisse like works and focused on money he wouldnt have painted Les Damoiselles d'Avignon... and one wonders where art would be right now. People argue that Braque would have done it eventually but even he wasnt focused on money and the mainstream at the time.

thats the problem. capatalism doesnt have a social conscience. and the negative effects of such we are seeing a lot today. its a monster that doesnt give a ***** about you or me just the almighty dollar. while it can create some positive things it has done a lot of harm and its this harm thats caused by it that we have to step back and try to fix.

thats a whole other topic anyways.... i know you dont agree i dont expect you too... we will go in cirlces.... please just let me have my opinion and you can have yours. if you can't respect my opinion then we cant discuss this in a civil fashion.

I'm not sure why you brought up Paul Robeson?

Ah, the old, "the public doesn't know what's best for it" argument. Sounds like you'd be better off in a fin de siecle salon in Paris than 21st century America.

I know it's a moot point but if Picasso hadn't painted Les Damoiselles d'Avignon then he should have burned his paintbrush? Without this particular painting the art world would have simply taken another turn whether it would have been progressive enough is of course anyone's guess, but ART would not have ended. To say that the history of art hangs on the ability of a single artist to paint a single painting seems histrionic and full of 20/20 hindsight.

It seems you're more interested in the overthrow of capItalism than you are in the progression of art itself. While I agree that capitalism isn't interested necessarily, anyway, in the promotion and progression of art it is interested in the rewards. Just because it's a push pull relationship as opposed to pull push.....

Capitalism has always been at the centre of art. Even the cave painters probably persuaded someone in their tribe to feed them while they painted their buffalo on the wall but you can be sure that those offering the food had something to do with the subject matter. In previous centuries progressiveness in art could take decades if not centuries to appear. I find it simplistic for current day art critics to expect an artist to continually progress along someone unknown path when there are so many forms of progression available.

I've a friend who was a college librarian and an amateur watercolorist. She finally took the plunge, quit her job and spent a year in Ireland painting. It was another two years before she achieved any critical acclaim but for her the progression was to take the risk and it was through that risk taking that she received her financial rewards. I'm sure you'll disagree when I say her Irish landscapes were quite progressive but you put art on a pedestal when art is but a form of individual expression. I know of few artists who are able to fully commit to their ART unless they take some kind of risk or commit to some commercial venture.

Let's face it, capitalism supports artists just as socialism, communism and tribalism does. In the end it is stupid to talk about the destruction or creation of art via -isms, it has always been the artist that creates not the social milieu.

[krossfyter]

look all im saying is that i value progressive art. and most of the time progressive art is being kicked in the ass by our capitalist system because the system wants whats been done before.. what people know... what people are used to. thats all. no im not advocating for any system to be the best for art... i dont know what system it would be. true... capatalism has helped art but it also has hurt it.
i think you think im some commie or something which im not. all i am is a person who values progressive art over novel art. and i want the system to be better tuned to accepting it. not sure how it would do that... not sure if thats possible. i think you are misunderstanding me. i mean how many times can i say "thats my opinion and i respect yours" and keep on getting ***** for having an opinion. im not sure what you are trying to do but i really dont feel you are respecting my opinion because you keep trying to find fault with it (which is worthless) or knocking it.

i can do the same to you with your opinion but i choose not to because its pointless... who am i to change your mind? you have yours, let me have mind. lets agree to disagree and let it go. nothing is accomplished other then a circular argument that needs sleep.

so in the end I say rollingstone should hang it up. thats my opinion and no ones allowed to change it.


your opinion is U2 sux ass now and no ones allowed to change that but you.


notice how am not taking issue with your opinion like you are with mine. whos respecting who?

[hulugu]

Interesting points from both Ugg and Krossfyter, I would like to interject.

First, trading cave paintings for some meat would not be Capitalism, but rather a pre-capital barter, you need money for Capitalism to work.
Second, Capitalism is an amoral system, capable of great beauty and also a craven rapaciousness at the same time.
However, art has always been at the close-hand of the patron, whether king, priest, pope, or extraordinarily rich, and thus the artists of everything from the Parthenon to Versailles, from Michaelangelo's David to the works of Salvador Dali have been paid for in some way. This is important, but within the last two centuries, the patrons of the arts have become multitude, what was once done by the pope is now done by thousands, and therefore art moves in several directions at once, in different mileus faster than ever before.
Art can coexist, and even thrive in Capitalism, but it is also in danger as market-forces make ever-greater demands on the 'sale' of art; sometimes art doesn't matter, it becomes product.
Capitalism, is like any other idea or technology, a dual-edged sword or a tiger whose tail we've grasped firmly with now way to let go.

[krossfyter]

worthy interjection hulugu. thanks. thanks for not taking issue with my opinion. thanks for letting it be.

[liketom]

so rumors are rife for the colour screen iPod maybe
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/10017655.htm?1c

[FelixDerKater]

They were just talking about the U2 iPod on CNN, saying that they were watching Apple Computer today in expectation of an announcement.

[tsaxer]

so rumors are rife for the colour screen iPod maybe
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/10017655.htm?1c

Thanks for going back on topic, but the link requires registration, what's the gist of it?

[Ugg]

look all im saying is that i value progressive art. and most of the time progressive art is being kicked in the ass by our capitalist system because the system wants whats been done before.. what people know... what people are used to. thats all. no im not advocating for any system to be the best for art... i dont know what system it would be. true... capatalism has helped art but it also has hurt it.
i think you think im some commie or something which im not. all i am is a person who values progressive art over novel art. and i want the system to be better tuned to accepting it. not sure how it would do that... not sure if thats possible. i think you are misunderstanding me. i mean how many times can i say "thats my opinion and i respect yours" and keep on getting ***** for having an opinion. im not sure what you are trying to do but i really dont feel you are respecting my opinion because you keep trying to find fault with it (which is worthless) or knocking it.

i can do the same to you with your opinion but i choose not to because its pointless... who am i to change your mind? you have yours, let me have mind. lets agree to disagree and let it go. nothing is accomplished other then a circular argument that needs sleep.

so in the end I say rollingstone should hang it up. thats my opinion and no ones allowed to change it.


your opinion is U2 sux ass now and no ones allowed to change that but you.


notice how am not taking issue with your opinion like you are with mine. whos respecting who?

From your earlier statements I was led to believe that you thought all art and artists should be progressive. I realize now that such a blanket statement was not your intent but that YOU prefer progressive art. There's a huge difference and it's easy on forums to misunderstand and incompletely state one's opinion.

I didn't make any implications regarding your political position other than stating that there is no ideal -ism regarding the creation of art. Every system has its upside and downside. Communism was unique in its support of the arts and in the early years some amazing things were produced. I think a person would be hard pressed to find any communist art of any lasting value produced after say the 50s. Socialism while it promotes art heavily seems to in my mind at least, to promote a certain blandness which in all honesty could be more a product of the homogenous societies it is produced in. Capitalism also promotes art but more for its monetary rewards. My guess is that when you combine all the isms together you get a fairly progressive world of art. No one system will ever be ideal and while capitalism has made many artists mediocre it has also allowed many artists to continue on beyond what they might have achieved in other systems.

I respect your opinion but I hate blanket statements that aren't backed up with facts. I'm glad that you hung in there so that this discussion could go as far as it has. BTW, I never said that U2 sux, I'm just not very fond of their current incarnation. Who knows, in a couple of years I may change my mind. Opinions should never be set in stone.

[Rod Rod]

It's black with a red click-wheel, 20GB for $349 available on the Apple Store site right now.

[abhishekit]

It's black with a red click-wheel, 20GB for $349 available on the Apple Store site right now.
Yah, it looks pretty ugly in the pictures. The link to high resolution pics is not working currently. I was all determined to buy this, but after seeing the color combination I am not so sure now. :(
EDIT: after seeing the pic on the homepage, i change my views again, I guess it looks alright..

[Prom1]

actually black and silver is a popular, classic combo:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000CH6GA.01-A1PY46IM1CBEG3._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000AGRYX.01.PT08.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


Hell yeah boyeee, you know it "The black'er the berry the Sweeter the Juice"

Any bets that if this is truely a limited run that in say 5 years it'll be a collectors item? (the signatures on the back is awesome.)

For those who are not fans of U2 - me specific traxx of theirs I like not all of them - think that this group had gone thru a lot just to make it big (before the Joshua Tree).

Good job Apple & U2.

Now as for the iPod Photo (if it can do slide shows; what about QuickTime hacks for video playback? hmmm any threads on this yet?)

[Mike Teezie]

Yay! Good job MacRumors.

Now, I'm off to get a U2 iPod.

[wdlove]

I think that the black and red combination is really cool looking. Now we will just have to wait and see how well it sells.

[weldon]

I really like the idea of Apple releasing a new SE iPod every 6 months. It could be any top artist next time around, but they should rotate the genres. If they time it with the release of some hot new release they can probably even get some co-promotion dollars from the record labels marketing budget. Mostly it would just cement their position as *the* MP3 player for the 'it' crowd.