frequeniquity said:or maybe this?
Not bad, but not as "user" comfortable as the one that is the subject of the original post IMO.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Flash iPod Details?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not bad, but not as "user" comfortable as the one that is the subject of the original post IMO.
jxyama said:
Correct. The statement was originally made at the launch of the iMac G4. However, it was repeated several times since, generally every time he talked about iMac G4 sales or design. It was generally still true right up to the iMac G5 launch, although more recend "computer behind the screen" flat-panel designs were significantly less clunky than the ones which were around when the iMac G4 debuted.
After you've watched Steve give a handful of keynotes, you'll recognize that certain "punch-phrases" get repeated from one keynote to the next, even when they don't always make as much sense as when they were first uttered.
Apples and oranges. He repeated the statement about flash players this year. The original statement was made at or shortly after the launch of the original iPod. Three years ago.
Yes, since the original statement was made, flash players have gone from 64MB to 512MB. But they are still clunky, hard to use, and generally (but not universally) have slow USB 1.1 interfaces. Transfering songs to and from is generally a matter of using the file system, which is both ugly and unnatural to all but the geeks that design the devices.
I don't know about how accurate this is but I personally wouldn't be too up in arms about no screen.
If I was to buy one I'd be using it at the gym/running/swimming(waterproof please) where I wouldn't bother to look at the screen at all. I'd just have the thing on shuffle and skip songs that I didn't want to hear (the clickwheel is great for this through your pants). It'd be loaded with the stuff I wanted to hear anyways.
My 40Gigger clickwheel spends 99% of it's time on shuffle in my pocket and I just skip songs that I don't like. The only time I use the screen is to play games when I'm going to the toilet or if I want to hear a specific song (which is rare these days). The only thing my screen does is wear down my battery quickly.
No screen is no real concern with this product for me - if the price is right...........
If I was to buy one I'd be using it at the gym/running/swimming(waterproof please) where I wouldn't bother to look at the screen at all. I'd just have the thing on shuffle and skip songs that I didn't want to hear (the clickwheel is great for this through your pants). It'd be loaded with the stuff I wanted to hear anyways.
My 40Gigger clickwheel spends 99% of it's time on shuffle in my pocket and I just skip songs that I don't like. The only time I use the screen is to play games when I'm going to the toilet or if I want to hear a specific song (which is rare these days). The only thing my screen does is wear down my battery quickly.
No screen is no real concern with this product for me - if the price is right...........
DavidLeblond said:Ha! That reminds me, when this newest flash-pod rumor hit slashdot, someone posted a link to the announcement of the original ipod in which people basically laughed at it and said how dumb it was and that it would never sell.
On the flip side, when the ipod mini rumors were floating around, people were opining that if it was any more than $149, it'll never sell. Same when 'just an mp3 player' came out for $399--people were bitching that such a device would never find its market.
my point in all this is that people on this forum have incredibly unrealistic expectations when it comes to price and features. I'm not even talking about the crippled functionality that's implied by this rumor, I'm talking purely about the price, and $99 for an Apple product is just pure fantasy.
Why is it so hard to comprehend??? Apple is NOT about making the cheapest products possible and 'owning' the market. Apple is about making something that's built well, works well, and is user-friendly, even if it means paying a certain price premium.
I wouldn't bash it because it has no screen. The popularity of shuffle has increased a lot. Many people (me included) wouldn't mind shuffling through a hundred or so random songs. Makes an easy, inexpensive, music player for going to the gym or walking to class/work.
See this article:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,63068,00.html
See this article:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,63068,00.html
Read the Post on the Macmind
It looks like somebody that works for apple posted something on macmind that sounded very interesting but i don't think anybody but me took it seriously, here it is:
... i've got a brother who's best freinds aunt shagged someone who knew Steve Job's cousins math tutor, and he said the new remote being developed for the current iPods IS the new flash based iPod ....
I know he sounds kinda sarcastic but I think if he may be telling the truth it would make more sense than anything Apple could ever think of. Think of it this way. A tiny flash based remote/headphones for ipods, ipod minis OR stand alone. Now this would be a great marketing scheme for Apple to get the rest of the mp3 player buying world on their bandwagon. So say i want an ipod but i don't want to spend 250 but hey look an ipod for 99? sweet i'll go buy it but hey its not really that much memory...so i'll buy the ipod mini and plug in my ipod flash into it which is a great accesory for it- Makes great Marketing sense- Let me here what you guys think of this one!
It looks like somebody that works for apple posted something on macmind that sounded very interesting but i don't think anybody but me took it seriously, here it is:
... i've got a brother who's best freinds aunt shagged someone who knew Steve Job's cousins math tutor, and he said the new remote being developed for the current iPods IS the new flash based iPod ....
I know he sounds kinda sarcastic but I think if he may be telling the truth it would make more sense than anything Apple could ever think of. Think of it this way. A tiny flash based remote/headphones for ipods, ipod minis OR stand alone. Now this would be a great marketing scheme for Apple to get the rest of the mp3 player buying world on their bandwagon. So say i want an ipod but i don't want to spend 250 but hey look an ipod for 99? sweet i'll go buy it but hey its not really that much memory...so i'll buy the ipod mini and plug in my ipod flash into it which is a great accesory for it- Makes great Marketing sense- Let me here what you guys think of this one!
DPazdanISU said:It looks like somebody that works for apple posted something on macmind that sounded very interesting but i don't think anybody but me took it seriously, here it is:
... i've got a brother who's best freinds aunt shagged someone who knew Steve Job's cousins math tutor, and he said the new remote being developed for the current iPods IS the new flash based iPod ....
I know he sounds kinda sarcastic but I think if he may be telling the truth it would make more sense than anything Apple could ever think of. Think of it this way. A tiny flash based remote/headphones for ipods, ipod minis OR stand alone. Now this would be a great marketing scheme for Apple to get the rest of the mp3 player buying world on their bandwagon. So say i want an ipod but i don't want to spend 250 but hey look an ipod for 99? sweet i'll go buy it but hey its not really that much memory...so i'll buy the ipod mini and plug in my ipod flash into it which is a great accesory for it- Makes great Marketing sense- Let me here what you guys think of this one!
how would it connect to the full sized iPod? What would be the point of having a flash based remote?
Intresting idea but... I don't think so. Why would they come up with a remote that does the same thing for the iPods but only helps those who can't afford a full one?
edit:
and who would pay 100 bucks for their iPod to have a remote?
Let's back to basics
1. The iPod IS the design that leads the market because it IS the design people want. A flash based iPod will be easily identified as an iPod - just like in the link chameeeleon posted. (Wouldn't be surprised if the person that did that was offered a job at Apple - the design was that good.)
2. An flash based iPod (my choice: iPod micro) is a product that would extend the price points of the iPods so more people could buy them. These people want an ipod, but cannot afford the starting price. The flash version would generate huge increases in sales - as long as it was SEEN as an iPod.
3. Apple has a patent on the click wheel and Steve J loves it. Now is not the time to change that.
4. Flash memory retail pricing doesn't count - even though I saw 1 gigs for $79 at Sam's. Remember when the iPod mini came out? People were buying them just to strip out the HD and throw away the rest because they saved $150+ over buying just the HD! Apple negotiates some rather aggressive pricing for their components so retail means nothing - especially when you are talking about a few million flash chips a year. Suppliers have been drooling and fighting over this contract for months.
5. Based on # 4 above I would bet on 1 & 2 gig iPod Micros - hopefully at $99 and $150. Probably got the capacity right and the pricing wrong.
6. The iPod Micro (starting to like that name) is going to need to use the same software that the others use, with very few modifications.
The main thing to remember is that we are talking about an iPod. Trying something besides the design that has won the world over is nuts.
1. The iPod IS the design that leads the market because it IS the design people want. A flash based iPod will be easily identified as an iPod - just like in the link chameeeleon posted. (Wouldn't be surprised if the person that did that was offered a job at Apple - the design was that good.)
2. An flash based iPod (my choice: iPod micro) is a product that would extend the price points of the iPods so more people could buy them. These people want an ipod, but cannot afford the starting price. The flash version would generate huge increases in sales - as long as it was SEEN as an iPod.
3. Apple has a patent on the click wheel and Steve J loves it. Now is not the time to change that.
4. Flash memory retail pricing doesn't count - even though I saw 1 gigs for $79 at Sam's. Remember when the iPod mini came out? People were buying them just to strip out the HD and throw away the rest because they saved $150+ over buying just the HD! Apple negotiates some rather aggressive pricing for their components so retail means nothing - especially when you are talking about a few million flash chips a year. Suppliers have been drooling and fighting over this contract for months.
5. Based on # 4 above I would bet on 1 & 2 gig iPod Micros - hopefully at $99 and $150. Probably got the capacity right and the pricing wrong.
6. The iPod Micro (starting to like that name) is going to need to use the same software that the others use, with very few modifications.
The main thing to remember is that we are talking about an iPod. Trying something besides the design that has won the world over is nuts.
i think someone is really good in photoshop, although it does look very sexy, although no screen...if i didn't have a screen, then i wouldn't buy it
Just to play devil's advocate-
Just to play devil's advocate (as a couple of others have)-
To say that it's complete nonsense just because it's not just like an iPod or iPod Mini is a little too conventional thinking IMO.
If Apple were to design a flash player with 1 GB or less, I am sure they really studied user habits of these types of devices vs. a multi-GB player. When they are used, how they are used (or could be used), etc. In particular, how one might design a 256 MB to 1 GB player so that it wouldn't be tossed in a drawer. Maybe $99 is still too low a price, but if it had the iPod Mini design then $199 may still be too low, and then there's only very marginal benefit to a flash iPod Mini vs. a regular iPod Mini. So if anything, if Apple does do a flash player then maybe something out of left field is to be expected (more exciting this way too!)
This would be just as the original iPod, which at first drew a collective "Huh?" from everyone. Innovative new design doesn't come from dupllicating 1 design all the way down the line, it comes from designing for the particular application.
In general, I agree with the doubts expressed about a mp3 player without a screen, but who knows. Maybe there is some new software features that differentiate this from their other players, with very tight iTunes integration. Someone else mentioned using shuffle a lot, what if with iTunes it automatically swapped out the existing songs with new ones (perhaps based on user rating, selected genre, tempo, user generated playlists, smart playlists, or even completely at random if you're feeling wild) with a single command in iTunes (or automatically when you docked it.) I think the basic idea would be to minimize the work involved in swapping songs, and keeping things fresh. That would make the most of the limited storage, and might represent a new way of using these smaller flash players. You get something fresh every time, just like listening to the radio. And doing this has to be very fast, literally seconds so people don't get impatient, which is why it would use Firewire vs. USB 1.
If they can doing something innovative like this, then they can get away with a very simple and small design, AND they can sell it starting at $99. Think about how stripped down the pictured player is vs. even a typical cheapie player. By leveraging a user's $1000+ computer as much as possible, they can cut the price of the player as much as possible.
If you don't like that, then get an iPod Mini or iPod and you can have a more conventional player without the capacity limitation.
My wife and father-in-law have Rio Nitrus players. They are great little units, but the problem is they have never actually switched the songs! They're just not very tech-savvy, and as a result don't realize the benefits of these players, and end up not using the players much. I think this is why many flash players end up gathering dust, not just because of the limited capacity. It's all about user experience, not about specs (specs of course play a part, but do not in themselves represent the ultimate success or failure of a product.)
Also, maybe there's more on the other side...some sort of button to help with navigation.
Just to play devil's advocate (as a couple of others have)-
To say that it's complete nonsense just because it's not just like an iPod or iPod Mini is a little too conventional thinking IMO.
If Apple were to design a flash player with 1 GB or less, I am sure they really studied user habits of these types of devices vs. a multi-GB player. When they are used, how they are used (or could be used), etc. In particular, how one might design a 256 MB to 1 GB player so that it wouldn't be tossed in a drawer. Maybe $99 is still too low a price, but if it had the iPod Mini design then $199 may still be too low, and then there's only very marginal benefit to a flash iPod Mini vs. a regular iPod Mini. So if anything, if Apple does do a flash player then maybe something out of left field is to be expected (more exciting this way too!)
This would be just as the original iPod, which at first drew a collective "Huh?" from everyone. Innovative new design doesn't come from dupllicating 1 design all the way down the line, it comes from designing for the particular application.
In general, I agree with the doubts expressed about a mp3 player without a screen, but who knows. Maybe there is some new software features that differentiate this from their other players, with very tight iTunes integration. Someone else mentioned using shuffle a lot, what if with iTunes it automatically swapped out the existing songs with new ones (perhaps based on user rating, selected genre, tempo, user generated playlists, smart playlists, or even completely at random if you're feeling wild) with a single command in iTunes (or automatically when you docked it.) I think the basic idea would be to minimize the work involved in swapping songs, and keeping things fresh. That would make the most of the limited storage, and might represent a new way of using these smaller flash players. You get something fresh every time, just like listening to the radio. And doing this has to be very fast, literally seconds so people don't get impatient, which is why it would use Firewire vs. USB 1.
If they can doing something innovative like this, then they can get away with a very simple and small design, AND they can sell it starting at $99. Think about how stripped down the pictured player is vs. even a typical cheapie player. By leveraging a user's $1000+ computer as much as possible, they can cut the price of the player as much as possible.
If you don't like that, then get an iPod Mini or iPod and you can have a more conventional player without the capacity limitation.
My wife and father-in-law have Rio Nitrus players. They are great little units, but the problem is they have never actually switched the songs! They're just not very tech-savvy, and as a result don't realize the benefits of these players, and end up not using the players much. I think this is why many flash players end up gathering dust, not just because of the limited capacity. It's all about user experience, not about specs (specs of course play a part, but do not in themselves represent the ultimate success or failure of a product.)
Also, maybe there's more on the other side...some sort of button to help with navigation.
wordmunger said:
Aren't we forgetting something? The music on the iTMS is AAC, not AAC+. I think Apple would like people to get the content of their iPod from Apple's own service. I don't think they'll be updating the music to AAC+ any time close..
The flashPod will use AAC, just like iPods. Of course that doesn't mean they all couldn't support AAC+ later...
Flash-based iPod LEAKED
Has anyone seen this ?
http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/68c5c9f68c988d9df307c1562da723fc/index.html
Has anyone seen this ?
http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/68c5c9f68c988d9df307c1562da723fc/index.html
Don_ said:
It's just a mirror of the original article, folks. Not worth clicking now that MacMind is back online.
frequeniquity said:or maybe this?
Uhh.... I think the iPod mini -like mockup has been the best so far. This is pretty ugly and seems a bit hard to use, because there's really nothing around the buttons. Definitely not this one.
I don't buy this - methinks macmind are just up for some cheap publicity on the back of a fairly big rumour thats currently doing the rounds.
Personally I can't see Apple making these things any less than 512mb - any smaller is against the whole iPod ethos...I also can't see them looking much different to iPod minis - obviously just a little smaller and probably made out of a decent plastic rather than metal to save on production costs....and no screen? That'd be madness - the iPod works because of the fluid relationship between the scroll-wheel and the screen - remove the screen and you've got a usability nightmare!
...I also don't buy the $99 price-tag - surely thats just a hangover from original iPod mini rumours?! I'd reckon $149 for a 512mb iPod Flash would be about right - this is Apple afterall and they will NEVER enter a market at the lowest price point - premium price for premium product.
Personally I can't see Apple making these things any less than 512mb - any smaller is against the whole iPod ethos...I also can't see them looking much different to iPod minis - obviously just a little smaller and probably made out of a decent plastic rather than metal to save on production costs....and no screen? That'd be madness - the iPod works because of the fluid relationship between the scroll-wheel and the screen - remove the screen and you've got a usability nightmare!
...I also don't buy the $99 price-tag - surely thats just a hangover from original iPod mini rumours?! I'd reckon $149 for a 512mb iPod Flash would be about right - this is Apple afterall and they will NEVER enter a market at the lowest price point - premium price for premium product.
Hearing the comments about the need/desire for an LCD screen, I am hoping now that this flash based iPod does have a screen. For I hope that this new iPod micro is a dual use product. One to carry tunes, the other as a "remote" for the Airport Express. Now that would be cool to have and would mean that a $200 price would be more justifiable.
Who says that the player has to do the voice synthesis. The synthesis could be done by iTunes before sync'ing and stored on the player as AAC(+).Tulse said:
I find it difficult to imagine a simple enough audio user interface, but maybe Apple can do better than I
A way in which this might work
Bizarre as it sounds, something like this could work as an iPod accessory, not as another iPod. A little unit you can send a playlist to by plugging it in, selecting the playlist, and waiting ten seconds for all the files to be transfered.
If you have a unit with a single playlist, and enough memory to store the most excessively long playlist, then you have the "device I can take jogging" thing that flash enthusiasts rave about without diluting the whole iPod concept. (You could also transfer a playlist from your computer, but the main advantage of connecting to directly to a "real" iPod is that you don't need to take your computer on vacation, to the office, or any of the other places where you might want to put a playlist in before taking off with the invulnerable-to-knocks solid-state player.
If you design it this way, you don't need a screen. It's one playlist, you can skip to tracks just by... well, skipping to them. And normally you wouldn't even do that. There wouldn't be enough music on it usually for this to be a problem.
That said, it would have very limited appeal like this. A better solution would be to license the technology for use in a mobile phone. While I think I read somewhere a Motorola/Apple iTunes-supported phone is available/going to be available, that still requires you be at your PC to load a new playlist.
This, FWIW, isn't to propose that I think this is what Apple plans to do, or even to suggest that I think the rumoured unit is something Apple will be coming up with.
Bizarre as it sounds, something like this could work as an iPod accessory, not as another iPod. A little unit you can send a playlist to by plugging it in, selecting the playlist, and waiting ten seconds for all the files to be transfered.
If you have a unit with a single playlist, and enough memory to store the most excessively long playlist, then you have the "device I can take jogging" thing that flash enthusiasts rave about without diluting the whole iPod concept. (You could also transfer a playlist from your computer, but the main advantage of connecting to directly to a "real" iPod is that you don't need to take your computer on vacation, to the office, or any of the other places where you might want to put a playlist in before taking off with the invulnerable-to-knocks solid-state player.
If you design it this way, you don't need a screen. It's one playlist, you can skip to tracks just by... well, skipping to them. And normally you wouldn't even do that. There wouldn't be enough music on it usually for this to be a problem.
That said, it would have very limited appeal like this. A better solution would be to license the technology for use in a mobile phone. While I think I read somewhere a Motorola/Apple iTunes-supported phone is available/going to be available, that still requires you be at your PC to load a new playlist.
This, FWIW, isn't to propose that I think this is what Apple plans to do, or even to suggest that I think the rumoured unit is something Apple will be coming up with.
Windowlicker said:
can you put a round screen inside the circle?? a square in a circle is not so cool...
...
man, the kid that did the mockup has to be laughing at us all....
Casual said:
Not saying I'm buying into this theory just yet, but wouldn't it be cool if the flash iPod (1GB for $179) also connected to a larger iPod as a remote, and the "much touted" secret 4G feature was that you could dl songs to the flash iPod to change your playlist on the go? It would act as a standalone item, and further, would have longevity even after you upgraded to a mini or regular iPod.
Chip NoVaMac said:
Yes! He did... Like that recent one: the iMac G5!! Steve Jobs said Apple would never build a design like that because of the optical drive, that supposedly couldn't be operated in a tilted position (however, the cube had a vertical slot-loading drive, but it wasn't tilted, so...)
[edit: someone already mentioned this... I'm sorry that I didn't feel like reading a few posts after this one, but anyway...]
And btw, I like that rendering for the iPodlounge contest, that with the micro iPods with the clickwheel at the right of a 3 line monochrome LCD. It looks just good enough to not look cheap, and to be very usable as every future iPod must be.
Here's a very real iPod death knell: the iPod MUST keep leading the pack, otherwise, it will lose its market dominance. If Apple does manage to keep that, it may be the first time that a monopoly proves to work. I wouldn't mind Apple having a monopoly, as long as their products keep their outstanding quality and are fairly priced (which they *almost* are), IMHO. But if they turn into the Microsoft of digital music, forget about it... Anyway, I'll still have my loyal 3G iPod
Does anyone remember this?
I started to think about an ad i saw at apple.com in late January this year. It was this image:
Then i heard nothing about this "little. The next big thing". What were they thinking with the "Little"? Was it a product that was never released, or what? Maybe this "flash" but that i got delayed? Does anyone know?
You can also see it at apple.com here at the "webarchive":
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202090904/www.apple.com/itunes/
By the way. I just signed up here, and this is my first post after having read yours for a year or so... Well, hi everybody. /Jonatan in Sweden
I started to think about an ad i saw at apple.com in late January this year. It was this image:
Then i heard nothing about this "little. The next big thing". What were they thinking with the "Little"? Was it a product that was never released, or what? Maybe this "flash" but that i got delayed? Does anyone know?
You can also see it at apple.com here at the "webarchive":
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202090904/www.apple.com/itunes/
By the way. I just signed up here, and this is my first post after having read yours for a year or so... Well, hi everybody. /Jonatan in Sweden
Porcelina said:I started to think about an ad i saw at apple.com in late January this year. It was this image:
Then i heard nothing about this "little. The next big thing". What were they thinking with the "Little"? Was it a product that was never released, or what? Maybe this "flash" but that i got delayed? Does anyone know?
You can also see it at apple.com here at the "webarchive":
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202090904/www.apple.com/itunes/
By the way. I just signed up here, and this is my first post after having read yours for a year or so... Well, hi everybody. /Jonatan in Sweden
Welcome to the forums. We're not all bad.
I think the tag line refers to the mini itself, and was not some cryptic allusion to a device yet to come.