iPod Possibilites?

[gekko513]

Yes, tomorrow will sure be interesting.

As to the mini, I would be very happy if Hobgobble's take is correct. A 4GB $199 player is even better than a 1GB $149 player in my opinion.

[jch200]

Isn't this new H.264 QT supposed to be able to produce CD quality sound at only 64 kbps? Hence a new flash 2 gig ipod with aacPLUS files at 64 kbps would be able to still give you 1000 songs in your pocket.

This information's all on that website that agentmouthwash gave the link to.
http://www.apple-x.net/modules.php

Really cool stuff.

[TVGenius]

My thoughts:

1.> Probably not an actual XM/iPod combo unit. The original stories that slipped late last week were that XM would announce a new XM receiver that would include "TiVo-like features" and that said unit would be in the style of a walkman. Comments were made suggesting that this may open the market to more portable devices having TiVo/iPod-like features. What that would be, I don't know. But I don't think that the Roady2 enclosure is what was rumored. Kits that do this have been around in a home-made variety for a while. Since the SkyFi came out people have been slapping a battery pack on it and using it as a walkman.

Check the 5th post on this page (after mine with all the stars)
http://www.xmfan.com/viewtopic.php?p=245638

If that price info is correct, along with all the other info, there's no way that the Roady2 enclosure is it. A Roady2 sells for about $130. I find it hard to believe that the enclosure would cost a hundred bucks.

2.> Apple is dumb :p to not make a cheaper/smaller iPod. My wife and I use iTMS alot, but I would never pay $300 for something that could so easily be rendered inoperable. I don't need to have 5,000 songs. I don't think that between me, my wife and her brother back in the heydays of Napster and KaZaA, we ever got anywhere near that combined. Give me something where I can choose the capacity, even if it means changing cards for another 20 hours of music, and I just might go for it. Besides, a flash-based player would use significantly less power as well, and thus last longer. I have a Sony discman that's four years old that can play for 70 hours on TWO AA batteries. Why buy something that holds 13 times more music than it can play on one set of batteries?

[appleface]

i'd be excited if the mini's switch from a hard drive to a compact flash drive would drop the price, but it's hard to imagine that apple would drop the price before Christmas. the ipod and the mini are still hot items, and a price drop seems too good to be true. we can hope :)

[Poff]

*Crosses fingers for 1GB Flash model*

[macMaestro]

If Apple were to make a $99 dollar iPod (not saying it wouldn't be sweet - I would totally get one), the demand would be too enormous to be feasible. I'd predict that there would be demand for 15-20 million units. There's no way Apple can produce that many units between now and when the jolly man in the red suit comes flying into town. If Apple were to release a flash iPod, it come in at a minimum price of $149. Knowing Apple, it'd be $199 (which, I might add, would make economical sense, much though a $99 dollar iPod would be so much better for the poor college students).

By the way, I haven't read the 11 previous pages, but I figured that though people were sure to point out the issue of margins, not many were likely to throw supply & demand out there. Apologize if redundant.

[suntzu]

I was looking for a cell phone (left my in my pocket as it went through the wash cycle) and came across articles about Motorola having iTunes on their phones.

So it's my belief that there isn't going to be a flash based iPod. Instead Moto is coming out with a cell phone that's a 256MB mp3 player. Also notice that those video standards coming out of Apple are geared towards mobile video.

I think the confusion comes from the over-seas people seeing the word Apple iTunes and thinking it's Apple that's going to have a new iPod.

Just my 2 cents.

[Yvan256]

maybe, but those are all OLD technologies. i could get an Atari 2600 pretty cheap on ebay, but i would rather drop some extra $ on the Xbox. my Xbox was $400 when i bought it. seems steep almost 3 years later, but you pay for new technology.

a 1 or 2GB flash player is new tech. that memory is still pretty costly. don't get me wrong, if Apple comes out w/ a flash player, i think $125-$150 is a fair price, but kind of hard to compare a brand new product's price w/ an already dated gamecube.

My point was not to compare the price of the devices themselves, but to show what choices teens/young adults will have for Xmas 2004 (if they don't already have a Gamecube/Playstation 2/Xbox/iPod).

[Yvan256]

I recall reading about a study that determined that $199 was a price point at which the typical consumer would entrtain an impulse purchase. Prices higher require more reflection and planning. The console sales of the past couple of rounds ( first with Saturn, PlayStation, N64, then again with Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, Gamecube) sure bear this out. Once the price breaks below $200, sales really take off and the market is penetrated beyond the leading edge consumer. Apple needs to get there to stake their place. Sure, lower is better for the consumer, but Apple has always been about maximum dollar for maximum quality. They don't NEED to go much below $199 unless competition forces them there, so they won't.

Oh, but they NEED to go there, because the competition is currently selling WMA players for much less than the iPod mini's 249$US, and Apple NEEDS to make AAC a very strong player in the digital audio market.

[Yvan256]

Part of the 'cool' factor with the ipod is that not everyone can afford one, and therefore not everyone has one. If Apple were to introduce a $149 version, it would simply canibalize sales of the higher priced ipods. Why save up to buy a $249 ipod when you can save $100 and still say you have an ipod? It would kill the cool factor and the prestige of the product.

Does a Dual G5/2.5GHz PowerMac looks less cool if you put a G4 eMac next to it?

No?

Then stop complaining about the possibility of Apple making low-cost versions of their existing lineup.

Even car companies do this. Take Nissan's cars: Sentra, Altima and Maxima. Heck, even BMW makes a "low-cost" car.

Would you choose the best of Kia's car lineup, or a low-end Nissan Sentra?

In short: Apple's low-end is still better and more stylish than the other's middle (and sometimes top) models, so who cares?

If you really want to be flashy because you're rich, get your 4th gen. 40GB iPod gold-platted or something. :rolleyes:

[krossfyter]

whens this suppose anouncement of the u2 ipod by jobs coming out?

so if this does happen... the speculation says that the u2 ipod is a mini and possibly flash based?

[izzle22]

whens this suppose anouncement of the u2 ipod by jobs coming out?

so if this does happen... the speculation says that the u2 ipod is a mini and possibly flash based?

The Media event is at 1:00 PM eastern time.And I doubt it will be a flash based unit but have no idea.

[krossfyter]

The Media event is at 1:00 PM eastern time.And I doubt it will be a flash based unit but have no idea.


thanks. on october 26?

[izzle22]

thanks. on october 26?

Yes sorry I left that out.

[lewdvig]

My thoughts:
2.> Apple is dumb :p to not make a cheaper/smaller iPod. My wife and I use iTMS alot, but I would never pay $300 for something that could so easily be rendered inoperable. I don't need to have 5,000 songs. I don't think that between me, my wife and her brother back in the heydays of Napster and KaZaA, we ever got anywhere near that combined. Give me something where I can choose the capacity, even if it means changing cards for another 20 hours of music, and I just might go for it. Besides, a flash-based player would use significantly less power as well, and thus last longer. I have a Sony discman that's four years old that can play for 70 hours on TWO AA batteries. Why buy something that holds 13 times more music than it can play on one set of batteries?

They will.

As for music collection - I have 11 GB worth and none of it pirated, encoded at 128 aac. If you see my collection of CDs I bet yours would be bigger.

20 GB is a minimum for music fans.

The benefit is always having any song or album with you when you want to hear it.

[lewdvig]

If Apple were to make a $99 dollar iPod (not saying it wouldn't be sweet - I would totally get one), the demand would be too enormous to be feasible. I'd predict that there would be demand for 15-20 million units. There's no way Apple can produce that many units between now and when the jolly man in the red suit comes flying into town. If Apple were to release a flash iPod, it come in at a minimum price of $149. Knowing Apple, it'd be $199 (which, I might add, would make economical sense, much though a $99 dollar iPod would be so much better for the poor college students).

By the way, I haven't read the 11 previous pages, but I figured that though people were sure to point out the issue of margins, not many were likely to throw supply & demand out there. Apologize if redundant.

You are nuts. You don't think MPIO makes money on flash MP3 players? If they cost 99 retail they cost 20 to make. Every time I go to CES there is an ancillary hall full of korean MP3 player companies - you think they are losing money? The flash based players are 1 chip plus RAM.

This is where the majority of players are sold - in the low end. Apple has 93% of HD mp3 players, not total. If they do flash they can own 90+% of EVERYTHING.

This is not the Mac platform - the volumes are way bigger.

Even if Apple's bill of materials is higher (likely) the volume will make up for it.

If Apple sells 10m flashPods/QTR do you knwo what that will do? Think about it.

Volume will make iTMS profitable.

[lewdvig]

Does a Dual G5/2.5GHz PowerMac looks less cool if you put a G4 eMac next to it?

No?

Then stop complaining about the possibility of Apple making low-cost versions of their existing lineup.

Even car companies do this. Take Nissan's cars: Sentra, Altima and Maxima. Heck, even BMW makes a "low-cost" car.

Would you choose the best of Kia's car lineup, or a low-end Nissan Sentra?

In short: Apple's low-end is still better and more stylish than the other's middle (and sometimes top) models, so who cares?

If you really want to be flashy because you're rich, get your 4th gen. 40GB iPod gold-platted or something. :rolleyes:


EXACTLY - What do you do when you have 70% of trhe mp3 player market?

EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO GET THE OTHER 30%

This won't be the Mac - Apple have to press the advantage. Stop thinking like a Mac user, start thinking like an Apple user (you know, the company that reinvented the way people enjoy music).

[DavidFDM]

I would love to have a set of Bluetooth headphones so I could put my ipod safely away in my pack and then control it with my BT phone. That would be so very nice.

[~Shard~]

And I doubt it will be a flash based unit but have no idea.

How can you doubt, but have no idea? :p ;)

[mhouse]

It is as if you people are willfully ignoring 20 years of Apple history.

Apple will not put in a satellite radio in an iPod.

Apple will not release an iPod Micro.

What Apple MIGHT do is alter the iPod Mini to use more efficient and/or cheaper memory. Jobs' stated goal was to get the price of the iPods down while maintaining a healthy profit margin. With iPods selling so well, why on Earth would any normal capitalism company start diluting its line with cheap $99 flash crap?

I think the next step for Apple is to update the Mini to maybe have a 5GB hard drive and try to get the price down to $199.

No, I, at least am not ignoring it all. I don't think others are either. What I hope is that Apple will *learn* something from that 20 year history.

You are right in this...Apple certainly has no short-term financial incentive to deliver cheaper iPods. No question. Just as they had no short-term financial incentive to license the Mac OS or produce cheaper hardware. But it *will* shoot them in the foot, eventually, if they don't.

Apple is close to having digital music wrapped up. They've got the best player, they've got the best store. The problem is that that was largely true of the Mac, too. If the stores get thronged with cheap iPod alternatives, people *will* buy them. A few at first, but more and more and, eventually, despite its superiority and despite the huge profit margin, Apple will have (just as with the Mac) nearly closed itself out of a market it pioneered.

If Apple has learned from their own history, then they will release a cheap, flash-based alternative to innoculate against this possibility. The *only* inroad MS and other have right now is the relative high cost of the iPod compared to other players. If Apple chooses to plug this one vulnerability, then its game-over for digital music. Apple will become the MS of that arena.

Its up to us to decide whether that's A Good Thing or not. Personally, I think it would be nice to have one segment of the digital world that Redmond doesn't swallow whole.

[lewdvig]

No, I, at least am not ignoring it all. I don't think others are either. What I hope is that Apple will *learn* something from that 20 year history.

You are right in this...Apple certainly has no short-term financial incentive to deliver cheaper iPods. No question. Just as they had no short-term financial incentive to license the Mac OS or produce cheaper hardware. But it *will* shoot them in the foot, eventually, if they don't.

Apple is close to having digital music wrapped up. They've got the best player, they've got the best store. The problem is that that was largely true of the Mac, too. If the stores get thronged with cheap iPod alternatives, people *will* buy them. A few at first, but more and more and, eventually, despite its superiority and despite the huge profit margin, Apple will have (just as with the Mac) nearly closed itself out of a market it pioneered.

If Apple has learned from their own history, then they will release a cheap, flash-based alternative to innoculate against this possibility. The *only* inroad MS and other have right now is the relative high cost of the iPod compared to other players. If Apple chooses to plug this one vulnerability, then its game-over for digital music. Apple will become the MS of that arena.

Its up to us to decide whether that's A Good Thing or not. Personally, I think it would be nice to have one segment of the digital world that Redmond doesn't swallow whole.

EXACTLY!

The arguement against the flash and inexpensive iPod is like saying that the BMW 3 series prevents people from buying the 7 series because it is cheaper.

Cheap players is a new market for Apple. People who can buy more storage will. This is a fragmented market.

Apple must particpate at all levels!

Apple must invent the cheap iPod alternative.

[Fat_Tonie]

Well I guess we will all find out tomorrow because as of right now, I cannot order one off of the Apple Store. If one were to try to order an iPod and continue without engraving and continue without iTunes certificate, it just goes to an empty link. This means that they will probably be introduced tomorrow and shipped 6 months from then.

Fat_Tonie

[nagromme]

Oh, but they NEED to go there, because the competition is currently selling WMA players for much less than the iPod mini's 249$US, and Apple NEEDS to make AAC a very strong player in the digital audio market.

Apple doesn't need to go less than $199 to make AAC a strong player--that ship has sailed.

The market for ALL non-iPod players combined is 38% of units sold. Flash players are less than that. And in dollars (instead of units), FAR less than that. Plus not all Flash players are under $199 anyway. So the segment that's sub-$199 is smaller still. Now how many of THOSE buyers would have spent a little more if they could gave gotten a real iPod for $199?

If and when Apple can sell a Mini of some kind (1-2 GB flash?) for $199 that will be a good thing. Lower than that isn't necessary right away--you're just not talking about a huge chunk of sales.

And Apple selling a low-capacity player (less than 500 songs) seems unlikely, given what they've said (and fairly) about how useless that really is to most people.

I also doubt there will be replaceable flash cards. A nice idea, but same goes for replaceable batteries.

[Poff]

Sony is to release two new flash-players.
NW-E99 is a 1GB flash-player retailing at about $200
NW-E95 is a 512MB flash-player retailing at about $130

http://www.itavisen.no/images/pic12219.jpeg

[Poff]

People seem to forget that it is only in the US that Apple has 70% of the marketshare on all mp3-players. In the rest of the world, even though the iPod is the most popular player, it is far away from having the same, big marketshare..

[Poff]

I would love to have a set of Bluetooth headphones so I could put my ipod safely away in my pack and then control it with my BT phone. That would be so very nice.


Bluetooth headphones are baad, m--kay?

The problem with bluetooth is that it has a slow transfer rate. You won't be able to listen to music with a 128kbps quality.

[Poff]

Apple doesn't need to go less than $199 to make AAC a strong player--that ship has sailed.

The market for ALL non-iPod players combined is 38% of units sold.

again, i repeat, these are US-only numbers. Apple has a whole world to conquer! GO APPLE! FLASH IPOD!

I would buy a 512MB $150 player at once!

[stealthboy]

iWin therefore iLoose..

Umm... sorry, but this is just bothering me. It's spelled "Lose", not "Loose".

[Poff]

Umm... sorry, but this is just bothering me. It's spelled "Lose", not "Loose".

Oops.. thanks! I don't really Win either..

edit: could I have said "iWin therefor I'm loose"? That would have been an even more terrible comment!

[lewdvig]

Apple doesn't need to go less than $199 to make AAC a strong player--that ship has sailed.

The market for ALL non-iPod players combined is 38% of units sold. Flash players are less than that. And in dollars (instead of units), FAR less than that. Plus not all Flash players are under $199 anyway. So the segment that's sub-$199 is smaller still. Now how many of THOSE buyers would have spent a little more if they could gave gotten a real iPod for $199?

If and when Apple can sell a Mini of some kind (1-2 GB flash?) for $199 that will be a good thing. Lower than that isn't necessary right away--you're just not talking about a huge chunk of sales.

And Apple selling a low-capacity player (less than 500 songs) seems unlikely, given what they've said (and fairly) about how useless that really is to most people.

I also doubt there will be replaceable flash cards. A nice idea, but same goes for replaceable batteries.


You are Coo-Coo for cocoa puffs!

This is the same arguement that relegated Apple to 3% share of new computers sold worldwide. We don't need to compte in the low end.

Yes you do. People do buy knock offs. People do buy generic boxes. You can not win this fight once your tech is commoditized - unless you do it yourself and keep clear reasons why people should pay for the premium product.

Apple can charge a premium - everything else being equal (storage capacity) the iPod's UI and iTMS/iTunes are superior. Apple enjoys the same brand cache that Sony does when it comes to MP3s.

There will always be a market for $50 or less MP3 player/USB drives - that is the low end. $99-199 is where the main stream buyers purchase and that is a place Apple wants to go. Steve said so himself.

Given the choice between a $99 MPIO or a $129 iPod almost everyone will take the iPod - if for no other reason than the sweet looking box. Seriously.

[The Red Wolf]

Well, by all accounts on Tuesday the 26th circa 2004 we should have new iPods. I guess everyone was wrong. Rumor is rumor it seems. So the $18 micro iPods with 4 GBs of memory didn't show up. Pitty.

[izzle22]

Well, by all accounts on Tuesday the 26th circa 2004 we should have new iPods. I guess everyone was wrong. Rumor is rumor it seems. So the $18 micro iPods with 4 GBs of memory didn't show up. Pitty.

The event is not until 1:00 PM eastern time so it is still possible. It's only 11:30 AM right now!

[slu]

People seem to forget that it is only in the US that Apple has 70% of the marketshare on all mp3-players. In the rest of the world, even though the iPod is the most popular player, it is far away from having the same, big marketshare..

You got any data on this? Or is this anecdotal?

[Poff]

You got any data on this? Or is this anecdotal?

I can try to look something up, but I do not know exactly where I've read it. (although everyone knows it.)

[Poff]

You got any data on this? Or is this anecdotal?

From www.itavisen.no: (first in norwegian, then in english)

"På verdensbasis har iPod nå 28 prosent av markedet for MP3-spillere, regnet fra januar fram til september i år. Totalt er det hittil i år solgt 18 millioner bærbare, digitale musikkspillere i 2004. Da er alt unntatt CD-spillere regnet med: både minidisc, fastminne og harddisk."

"On a world-basis, the iPod has got 28 percent of the mp3-player market, counting from january till september this year. Counting both minidisc, flash and harddisk players (but not cd-players), 18 million portable, digital musicplayers has been sold so far in 2004."

Sorry, my english translation skills are not at all that good..

http://www.itavisen.no/showArticle.php?articleId=1304601

[johnnyjibbs]

Wow so the photo iPod turned out to be true. I didn't think that would happen :p

[wrldwzrd89]

Wow so the photo iPod turned out to be true. I didn't think that would happen :p
The photo iPod was a reality, but not aacPlus. At least not yet.

[Poff]

No flash-player.. :(

[zelmo]

No flash-player.. :(

I think this is a bad move on Apple's part.
While I really, really like the photo iPod, and am not even opposed to that fugly U2 iPod, I think Apple is missing the point by failing to have a sub-$200 price point in the iPod line-up.
The iPod has helped popularize the MP3 player market, to the point where this will be the biggest holiday season yet for this blossoming market. There are lots of folks who can't afford $300 or even $250 for an iPod or a mini, but they will get some digital player for Christmas this year, even if it is an el cheapo $79 512MB player. If it uses a different DRM and isn't compatible with iTMS, then these folks are building a collection of music that they cannot port over to an iPod when they decide they can afford it. Given a choice later of either abandoning/re-purchasing $$ worth of music to buy an iPod, or of going with another product/vendor, guess what the vast majority will choose? Apple is just being short-sighted here. Maybe they plan on introducing one as soon as they know they have the capability to meet demand (a novel concept for Apple lately), but missing this holiday season is not something Apple can un-do down the road. Every consumer who starts their library without iTMS compatibility is one more nail in the coffin precluding Apple from becoming a long term player in this market.
Sacrifice a little margin now, Steve. The brand couldn't be hotter. You can still charge a smallish premium over the competition because of that brand. Get the technology into as many hands as possible now, and lock people in to iTMS!

Where's my damn $179 2GB purple flash iPod mini???

[Poff]

..tried making a flash-ipod petition on petitiononline.com but got a server error.. and I was really in the mood for a little battle with Apple.

[lewdvig]

I think this is a bad move on Apple's part.
While I really, really like the photo iPod, and am not even opposed to that fugly U2 iPod, I think Apple is missing the point by failing to have a sub-$200 price point in the iPod line-up.
The iPod has helped popularize the MP3 player market, to the point where this will be the biggest holiday season yet for this blossoming market. There are lots of folks who can't afford $300 or even $250 for an iPod or a mini, but they will get some digital player for Christmas this year, even if it is an el cheapo $79 512MB player. If it uses a different DRM and isn't compatible with iTMS, then these folks are building a collection of music that they cannot port over to an iPod when they decide they can afford it. Given a choice later of either abandoning/re-purchasing $$ worth of music to buy an iPod, or of going with another product/vendor, guess what the vast majority will choose? Apple is just being short-sighted here. Maybe they plan on introducing one as soon as they know they have the capability to meet demand (a novel concept for Apple lately), but missing this holiday season is not something Apple can un-do down the road. Every consumer who starts their library without iTMS compatibility is one more nail in the coffin precluding Apple from becoming a long term player in this market.
Sacrifice a little margin now, Steve. The brand couldn't be hotter. You can still charge a smallish premium over the competition because of that brand. Get the technology into as many hands as possible now, and lock people in to iTMS!

Where's my damn $179 2GB purple flash iPod mini???


Next Monday is Apple's deadline for Christmas products. It could still happen.

[suntzu]

Bluetooth headphones are baad, m--kay?

The problem with bluetooth is that it has a slow transfer rate. You won't be able to listen to music with a 128kbps quality.

M--no. ;)

Case in point the Sony Ericsson HBM-30.
Check Here... (http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp?cc=us&lc=en&ver=4000&template=pp4_loader&php=php1_10060&zone=pp&lm=pp4_1&pid=10060)

Bluetooth is actually capable of producing speeds of 120 kpbs - 723kbps. Which even at half, is good enough. Source (http://www.thetravelinsider.info/roadwarriorcontent/bluetooth.htm)

The bluetooth headphones would be nice because you could set it up with iTunes to have your song pause on incoming calls.

The bigger problem is battery life. Continuous Bluetooth usage is limited to a couple of hours (could be more but the headphones would be bulkier).

[Poff]

Next Monday is Apple's deadline for Christmas products. It could still happen.

If it will ever come, it will probably not be before Christ-mass. Maybe Apple wants everyone to shell out the extra bucks. Maybe they are afraid those who would get a regular mini will instead get a flash-mini..

[Poff]

M--no. ;)

Case in point the Sony Ericsson HBM-30.
Check Here... (http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp?cc=us&lc=en&ver=4000&template=pp4_loader&php=php1_10060&zone=pp&lm=pp4_1&pid=10060)

Bluetooth is actually capable of producing speeds of 120 kpbs - 723kbps. Which even at half, is good enough. Source (http://www.thetravelinsider.info/roadwarriorcontent/bluetooth.htm)

The bluetooth headphones would be nice because you could set it up with iTunes to have your song pause on incoming calls.

The bigger problem is battery life. Continuous Bluetooth usage is limited to a couple of hours (could be more but the headphones would be bulkier).

I know some companies experiment with wireless bluetooth headphones, and they have a problem with low transfer rates. I don't know, maybe these are theoretical transfer rates, but actual transfer rates may be much smaller depending on surroundings. A big part of the experimenting is making a compression algorithm that won't sound so bad. Well.. it hasn't taken off yet.


Edit: btw. that sony-ericsson thing of yours doesn't transfer music by bluetooth, only the phonecalls. The headphones are ordinary, wired ones.