Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Splitting iPod Touch Lineup Between Current and New Designs, Increasing Color Options for iPod Shuffle and New Nano?

Cougarcat said:
IMO it's worse than iAds, because there are usually paid app versions with no ads, or a way to pay .99 to get rid of them. I really don't understand why Amazon doesn't let you pay another $20 to get rid of them.

The UK models have ads too.
Click to expand...

Have you got a link to where it states the UK? Because the laws are different here so I am at present not so sure the UK Fires will have the ads.
 
CWallace said:
CNET UK reports that the UK model Kindle Fire HD will have Lock-Screen and Home Screen advertising:

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/kindle-fire-hd-7-inch-tablet-costs-159-has-lock-screen-ads-50009117/

The Telegraph UK and ZDNet also claim this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...on-to-sell-Kindle-Fire-tablets-in-the-UK.html

http://www.zdnet.com/all-kindle-fire-hd-models-ad-supported-but-only-in-the-us-7000003893/
Click to expand...

Thank you mate. The ZDNet article was why I was hesitant to believe it. But obviously they have confirmed it now. I wouldn't mind though if the ads are Kindle related. But that's me. Plus they are only on the lock screen which I'm guessing you can set to time out anyway?
 
jalcide said:
Why? Two words: Lossless audio.

For a few of us, it's all about the music first, convenience second. We remember what uncompressed 16bit/44.1 audio sounds like. The iPod Classic + ALAC (lossless audio format) + good headphones (e.g., Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones) = a pretty respectable mobile hi-fi setup.

Remember, most music is produced and mastered at 24bit/88.2 (or higher even) in the studio. Even lossless 16bit/44.1 is a compromise to what the producers wished we could hear. You can imagine how they feel about lossy codecs on top of that. It's unacceptable.

It's like we're stuck in a bandwidth-compromised, storage-challenged time loop, even though both of those underlying technologies have progressed forward.

In some parallel universe, people are able to buy lossless audio from iTunes and play it back on their 512gb iPods and download "plus" versions at 24bit/96khz.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you but sadly I think we are pissing in the wind on this one. Apple doesn't care about music quality or audiophiles like us - iTunes only exists to sell more iPods/iPhones. That's why they keep selling crappy compressed music so they can continue to advertise "so many thousands of songs in your pocket" as if quantity has any relationship to quality.

I lost faith in iTunes long since and went back to CDs. It's less convenient but at least I get great sound quality. Who knows maybe one day but I'm not holding my breath. It's like the Sony Walkman revolution over again. One day the iPod will simply fade into history and people will return to the CD.
 
CapnJackGig said:
Only a fool will pay 300 for a Touch when they can get 9 inch tablet for the same price. Keep trying, Apple.
Click to expand...
Only a fool will pay $1199 for 13" MacBook Air when they can get 21.5" iMac for the same price. Keep comparing people.
 
monaarts said:
My prediction for prices is as follows:

iPod Shuffle (1 model): $49
iPod Nano (2 models): $129 & $149
iPod Touch (2 models, both with 4" screens): $199 & $299
iPod Classic finally deleted from inventory
iPhone (32gb, 64gb, and 128gb models): $199, $299, & $399
iPad 2 removed from inventory
iPad Mini (8GB, 16GB, and 32GB w/ & w/o 4g): $249, $349, $449, $379, $479, & $579
iPad (3): same prices as current models


Watch and see!!! :D
Click to expand...
iPad mini 249$ ? Never gonna happen.
 
MacRumors said:
- iPod touch: Apple is also expected to update the iPod touch, with several rumors and part leaks pointing to the device gaining a similar 4-inch display to that apparently coming to the iPhone 5. But today's report indicates that Apple may take a hybrid approach to its lineup, releasing a tweaked version of the current design at the low-end while bringing the significant redesign to the higher-end models.The report says that these new $299/$399 iPod models presumed to be the iPod touch will come in "multiple variations" beyond the capacity differences implied by the two different price points.
Click to expand...

In other words, the iPod Touch is getting a price increase. They'll continue to sell what is essentially the model they've had the last two years at the original entry level price point and then make you pay more for an updated one.

Just like I was sayin', Apple worried about iPod Touch cannibalizing the iPhone's sales with its lack of expensive service contracts. So first they downgrade it through atrophy, then they introduce a new model at a price point that's less of a price difference compared to the iPhone.
 
My guess is that the new nano will be 16 GB only. And the new high-end iPod touch will look somewhat like the new iPhone and be high-end models will be 32 and 64 GB storage capacities.
 
crono3 said:
PLEASE include a memory upgrade to 128gb! That's been my #1 want for awhile... really sucks having to manage space all the time on my 64gb. My iPod Touch is just about 3 years old now... I was ready to upgrade last year, but Apple gave me no incentive to do so. Let's hope this year is different :)
Click to expand...

Yes have been wanting to go to a iPod touch for 3 years now but I can still manage all of my music on my iPod classic 160gb. Not that it is a ton of music but encode in AIFF and do not want AAC files. Have to manage music as is on 64gb iPhone 4S and see no need of shelling out more $$$ for something that offers no more storage and no cell phone. Please Apple, like the OP said, we hope for increased storage on the iPod Touch
 
Those two new reconfigured iPod touches; they are the rumoured iPad Mini. What could they add to an iPod touch without bringing it closer to an iPhone. Note they did nothing to it last year(added white). Currently for the extra $100 -$200 you double memory capacity. If they add GPS, compass, cellular or a better camera; it's just closer to an iPhone. But if they change the screen size...what do you have then; the rumored iPad Mini!

----------

Geez 'charltuna' I wasn't going to read 137 comments to see if anyone else thought of this. I post a reply and there you are just beat me to it. I say they're going to call the iPad Mini the iPod touch.
 
How about an iPod that has an SD card slot so you can put some real storage into it, not 2GB? The reason I never bought an iPod nano, shuffle, or classic was because Apple seriously rips you off for extra capacity. Well, I guess the Classic is an OK deal except that I don't need 160GB at all.

2GB iPod: $49
8GB iPod: $129 < :mad:
16GB iPod: $149
160GB iPod: $249
 
Last edited:
jalcide said:
Why? Two words: Lossless audio.

For a few of us, it's all about the music first, convenience second. We remember what uncompressed 16bit/44.1 audio sounds like. The iPod Classic + ALAC (lossless audio format) + good headphones (e.g., Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones) = a pretty respectable mobile hi-fi setup.

Remember, most music is produced and mastered at 24bit/88.2 (or higher even) in the studio. Even lossless 16bit/44.1 is a compromise to what the producers wished we could hear. You can imagine how they feel about lossy codecs on top of that. It's unacceptable.

It's like we're stuck in a bandwidth-compromised, storage-challenged time loop, even though both of those underlying technologies have progressed forward.

In some parallel universe, people are able to buy lossless audio from iTunes and play it back on their 512gb iPods and download "plus" versions at 24bit/96khz.
Click to expand...

I have plenty of lossless audio, and it still doesn't eat up that much. Anyway, I agree; I will never use the iTunes Store until it's lossless. CDs for now. Also, CDs are a better deal, and they provide automatic backup.

No need to worry though! Beats by Dr. Dre use Dr. Dre's magical overpriced doctor powers to make the audio sound like "how the artist intended it"!

----------
Virinprew said:
Only a fool will pay $1199 for 13" MacBook Air when they can get 21.5" iMac for the same price. Keep comparing people.
Click to expand...

One is portable, weighs hardly anything, and comes with an SSD. I'd say the MacBook Air is for people who don't care about computing power, which is not really that important for most people.

Forget the $1200 iMac; my 8-core Mac Pro has 8 2.8GHz cores and 4GB RAM, and it only cost me a little less than $1000 (since it's from 2008) plus an $80 display. Of course, my setup looks like trash. The only real reason I wanted the Pro was so that I could open it easily, and the super-powered computing is not necessary for me.
 
CapnJackGig said:
Only a fool will pay 300 for a Touch when they can get 9 inch tablet for the same price. Keep trying, Apple.
Click to expand...
9 inch tablet is hard to fit in your pocket and since when has Apple been concerned with price competition? The company is on top its not chasing the competition. Even with price cuts from other companies Apple is still dominant.

mcfrazieriv said:
:rolleyes:

Circa 1994
Apple splits product lines so that there are essentially 30 different kinds of Mac.

Today
Tim Cook splits product lines so that there are multiple variants of every single device.

Future
Well we all know what will happen.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately at some point the company will have to fall or at least level out, I do semi agree though, a messy line up is a recipe for disaster.

o0jelly0o said:
I do not understand how anyone could use 128GB. It is simply unreasonably large amount of storage space. It is incredibly hard to use 128GB worth of music (assuming one uses them for music and not storing hundreds of apps they don't open), I mean that is just WAY too many songs to choose from, like you would literally never listen to most of them. Generally you listen to certain groups of songs you like, and most of them you never end up playing, like I have so many songs on my 8GB iPod Touch that I literally never play because I just don't feel like listening to them. It's just for those people who want every song they own, no matter how many plays it has on their device (0 being the majority) just because.
Click to expand...

This is like saying I only drive 20 miles a day so why does anyone need more than a 5 gallon gas tank? Everyone has different uses in a car just like a media device, just because YOU dont need it doesnt mean others don't.

Further Apple has been stuck in the same capacities for 3 years on flash, flash has come down in price dramatically since then and there is absolutely no reason why Apple cant offer at least 128gb at the same price point as 64 gb. Cloud is NOT the future, its a security risk, its slow, its unreliable (cant get a good connection everywhere). I see no reason for Apple to drop the ball on capacity because of Cloud storage.

Remember we are still at the SAME capacity that was offered when iTunes was still 128 kbps AAC for music and standard def videos. Music has doubled in size and videos have tripled in size yet capacities have stayed the same.
 
o0jelly0o said:
I do not understand how anyone could use 128GB. It is simply unreasonably large amount of storage space. It is incredibly hard to use 128GB worth of music (assuming one uses them for music and not storing hundreds of apps they don't open), I mean that is just WAY too many songs to choose from, like you would literally never listen to most of them. Generally you listen to certain groups of songs you like, and most of them you never end up playing, like I have so many songs on my 8GB iPod Touch that I literally never play because I just don't feel like listening to them. It's just for those people who want every song they own, no matter how many plays it has on their device (0 being the majority) just because.
Click to expand...

I would have no trouble filling a 128GB iPod touch given that my iTunes library as a whole is nearly 500GB (32GB Music, 32GB apps, the rest video); the more I can fit on such a device, the more of a likelihood Apple's stupid quest to kill optical media will actually work on me as a 128GB iPod touch + Dock Connector to HDMI adapter = insta-portable DVD-replacement. Boom.

Luckily, if such an iPod materializes, you have the luxury of not buying it.
 
It's simply naive to say 128gb is unreasonably large.

I'm a power user like many here. I keep things simple but I eat up a ton of space, even with music being 256kbps VBR (iTunes plus more or less). I have two pages of apps. First page is apps, second page is all folders. I keep it simple... But the large number of apps (and size of certain apps) and music easily fills 64gb.

128 model would rock my world.
 
My guess for future lineup

iPod shuffle 4gb ($49)
iPod nano 16gb ($149)
iPod touch 3.5" 8gb ($199)
iPod touch 4" 32/64gb ($299/399)
iPad mini 16/32/64 ($299/399/499)
iPad 3 16gb ($399)
iPad 4 16/32/64gb ($499/599/699)
 
This would make so much sense because....

Upon seeing rumors (on this site I believe) that the current nano (a software-updated version of the previous nano, same nano) would receive bluetooth, I put up my 2nd gen nano on ebay and sold it last year just before they released the software-updated same version of the current nano. So, I had to buy one anyway, a year ago.

And now its going to be all new, and knowing my luck have bluetooth...
 
Current iPod Nano is a lousy design

Lauded for practically everything it does, Apple utterly failed with the current iPod Nano. Of course, the usual chorus of, 'We Meant Well..' will apply. But for a company having so much industrial-design horsepower, this was an epic fail for these reasons: too small, 'which end is up, anyway?', and no way to track the progress of the selection you're listening to.

Small is nice...to a point. The iPod Nano that this one replaced was actually a better, more friendlier design. You always knew 'which end was up.' I got my current-generation Nano as part of the replacement program Apple offered, so I was 'given' it...I didn't 'choose' it (and then regret it afterward).
 
ChrisNH said:
Lauded for practically everything it does, Apple utterly failed with the current iPod Nano. Of course, the usual chorus of, 'We Meant Well..' will apply. But for a company having so much industrial-design horsepower, this was an epic fail for these reasons: too small, 'which end is up, anyway?', and no way to track the progress of the selection you're listening to.

Small is nice...to a point. The iPod Nano that this one replaced was actually a better, more friendlier design. You always knew 'which end was up.' I got my current-generation Nano as part of the replacement program Apple offered, so I was 'given' it...I didn't 'choose' it (and then regret it afterward).
Click to expand...

I didnt like the little nano at first either as I dont like having to look at the player to use it but after getting an arm band its a great little guy.

I wouldnt mind them going back to the 5th gen design again however.
 
lorenwade said:
It's simply naive to say 128gb is unreasonably large.

I'm a power user like many here. I keep things simple but I eat up a ton of space, even with music being 256kbps VBR (iTunes plus more or less). I have two pages of apps. First page is apps, second page is all folders. I keep it simple... But the large number of apps (and size of certain apps) and music easily fills 64gb.

128 model would rock my world.
Click to expand...

All anyone has to do is think to themselves, just WHY is the iPod Classic STILL being made?? A LOT of audiophiles use them for lossless audio portability, a 128GB flash iPod would be great for people like yourself.

As for the apps, totally agree, it's why I think the new Fire HD will sell well against the Nexus 7, it's why I plan to go from 16GB iPhone to 32GB when the new one comes out. Apps eat storage like nothing, especially HD content.

IMO Apple have shot themselves in the foot a bit by not launching a 128GB iPad option yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back