Apple says "Let's Rock", be here because it will be a big deal...

Discussion in 'iPod' started by MVApple, Sep 6, 2008.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    #1
    The iPod Nano update and a iPod Touch refresh sounds like minor points, and the upgrade to iTunes 8.0 doesn't seem like a huge deal either. Something big must be happening though, according to Apple.

    Anyone else think Apple has scored a huge music deal? Possibly a subcription service? Maybe all music will be converted to the higher quality non-drm variety? The addition of Beatles to the iTunes store? The addiction of being able to purchase HD movies and or tv shoes via iTunes? Although the "Let's Rock" title would imply its more music related.

    Out of all of these things I think the music subscription service would be huge and the biggest deal.

    Opinions?
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    sam10685

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #2
    I agree. There's that new ipod nano picture that looks very real and apple has done nothing about that so I think they might have something big uo their sleeve.
     
  3. macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #3
    Out of all the things you listed, I also think the music subscription service would be the biggest deal, but I don't expect to see it.

    Out of all the things you listed, the one I want most is HD TV Shows. I desperately want this so I can stop buying DVDs!


    However, if this event really does turn out to be a "big deal," I don't think either of these things will be the reason. I am very skeptical that it will turn out to be all that big. I mean, iTunes 8, new iPod nanos, updates iPod touches, and new iPhone features (we have some reason to believe these will be announced), might be enough for Apple to consider it big.

    For it to actually be a big deal, I think there needs to be a whole new product. iPhone nano would be my first guess, AppleTV DVR would be my preference.
     
  4. macrumors 68020

    teknikal90

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #4
    new nano, up to 16 gb or even 32 gb
    classic line wiped
    hard drive based ipod touch
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Camp Snoopy
    #5
    A hard-drive based touch would be one of the worst decisions Apple could make.

    The big news would probably be iTunes Store-related, I'd guess.
     
  6. Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #6
    Just Hype?

    Maybe this is all just hype. Have you noticed ever since Bloomberg "Accidentally" published Steve Jobs obituary that the rumors have stepped up even further? I don't think Steve Jobs is telling the truth about his health and is promising "surprises" to show people that he will be here a while longer and to keep buying his products!

    -superhamster

    And yes, a hard drive based iPod Touch would be horrible. I would never buy anything but a solid state iPod.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Location:
    West Sussex, England, UK
    #7
    Quite possibly the worst idea ever.

    It could be the introduction of a new iPod.
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #8

    I don't envisage that happening for a very long time.
     
  9. Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #9
    Why Not?

    "I don't envisage that happening for a very long time"

    Why not? Who honestly needs 40,000 songs on the go with them? I have an 8 GB iPod Nano and have a hard time filling that up. I have about 6 GB's worth of music and several games with me and that's enough. I find it funny when people complain that a 160GB Classic is not enough. Be happy with what you have.
    -superhamster
     
  10. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Denver Colorado
    #10
    160GB is not enough. I have a 1TB drive on my iMac here that is just about full of music and video purchased from iTunes. No, 160GB iPod Classic is not big enough. I bring my Classic along with my two 16GB iPhones with me everyday. I listen to the iPod in the car and one of the phones at work depending on what I want to listen to. So yeah....
     
  11. macrumors regular

    gtyper

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Location:
    Hauula, Hawaii .... among other places.
    #11
    Well, I do. Why would you think that just because *YOU* don't need it doesn't mean that everyone else ought to live by your standards?

    I keep all my music in lossless quality and because multiple libraries in iTunes is a pain ... I don't convert down. I use every millibyte of space.
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #12

    My iTunes library (music, TV shows, podcasts and audiobooks) is a little over 80GBs and my iPod is a 1GB shuffle, so if I wanted to have access to it in it's entirety I'd need an iPod classic. (If you were to check some of the threads on this site you'd find people with libraries that run into terabytes. :eek: )

    The iPod classic is here to stay.
     
  13. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    #13
    Maybe because some people don't listen to singles. Some people like quality music. Not all of us listen to MTV music. Some of us listen to artists that still craft albums and want to listen to them in high quality, maybe even lossless. My 80GB holds a fraction of my music and stays locked in my glove box hooked to my radio. 24-bit Vinyl rips take a lot of space, also. I listen to nothing but the iPod in my car.
     
  14. macrumors G3

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #14
    how much money are u making if you've managed to pay for 1TB off of itunes?!

    honest question.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Location:
    Jakarta
    #15
    This is a good point. An average CD (about 40 minutes) in lossless format is almost 500 MB. That fills a up a hard drive really quickly.
     
  16. macrumors 68020

    teknikal90

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #16
    imagine a 160gb ipod, with the touch interface...
    eliminates the need for a separate classic line

    and the nano would get capacity increase bridging the gap between the once 'low' capacity model and the 'classic' model.
     
  17. Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #17
    Why Lossless?

    Why do you need your files to be in Apple Lossless. I am happy with the 128 Kbs default setting and use quality earbuds from Skullcandy. I mostly have Disco, Trance and Jazz on my iPod and they sound great!


    -superhamster
     
  18. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #18
    Many would consider that statement to be an oxymoron.

    I'm not an audiophile, but I rip at 160 or 192. Some people rip higher bitrates, some people rip at lower bitrates.

    That's why Apple has more than 1 line of iPods- so everybody can find an iPod that suits their needs. See how that works? ;)
     
  19. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #19
    No it doesn't (for me at least). I don't want a touch interface on my music player, thank you very much!
     
  20. macrumors 68020

    SactoGuy18

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA USA
    #20
    Notice one thing: remember last year when the 9to5mac web site got a takedown notice from Apple's legal department because 9to5mac showed the REAL 3G iPod nano, complete with the correct color cases? Note that this year Apple's legal department have been strangely quiet when pictures of the supposed 4G nano started showing up on a number of web sites; it is possible that the pictures are a ruse and that the real 4G nano is a much different device than we all think??
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    #21
    I dont think that you will win the argument that 128 is " good enough." It may be enough when using a mid grade ear bud from an iPod, but when you compare 128 to lossless on a high end stereo speakers (ie Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus series) and a decent amp (ie nothing sold at best buy) and cables, etc, you WILL hear a difference between 128 and lossless. Now, as you step into the higher grades such as 256, etc, in my opinion, the grades get exponentially harder to tell a difference.

    Having said that, as someone mentioned above, 160gb goes real fast when a song that used to be 3mb is now 25mb. :eek: When you shrink a file 8-10x what do you think they are removing? Its data, pure and simple. Less data = less information to generate audio = reduced quality.

    - C
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    #22
    I am pretty sure this statement made me laugh. I am POSITIVE there are worse decisions apple can make. For example...

    Selling Apple to the company Frizbee.

    Or... Rereleasing the 1gen ipods, and stopping production on the others.

    Not to mention that this is a completely relative argument. What is a "worst decision" to you, could be a great decision to others. For example:

    If Apple decided to, in secrecy, bomb your house with mustard gas. This would be a bad decision effecting you. But as of right now, i wouldn't care.
     
  23. Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #23
    Why?

    Why is that an Oxymoron? Skull Candy makes very good headphones and if Apple chooses the default setting of 128 then many people must love it!

    -superhamster
     
  24. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #24
    Maybe the long-awaited mini-tablet is about to be released. It is possible that Apple is keeping tight security on it whilst "inadvertently" loosening secrecy of other products.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    #25
    Why would they release a mini tablet at a music event? Unless they planned a music event, with product releases only to cover up rumors about a tablet? Haha. Makes no sense.
     

Share This Page