Instead of the Apple sock, I wish they had released an OG-style iPod—slimmed down, with a super battery, a 1 TB or 2 TB option, the classic click wheel, and a nice screen.
So do I, although I wouldn't buy either. But that's an Apples to Honda Civics comparison, which comes back to the point I was making about Apple's tech product portfolio being extremely small, and with almost not exceptions products that sell a lot of units in absolute terms, even if not in relative terms to a ridiculously popular product like the iPhone.
How much design time went into the Sock vs even a light refresh of an iPod that wouldn't suck? (Answer: Likely
none, since Apple didn't even design the Pocket thing, Issey Miyaki did, although if they had it would still be a much simpler job.)
How much software development would be required to support the sock vs. a new iPod? Again, none, vs. not-none, since even if they just used the same old OS they'd still need to review it, make it work with whatever hardware changes needed to be made, and make sure it could sync with whatever it is supposed to sync with.
Likewise for the amount of manufacturing--I don't know how the sock was made, but it obviously wasn't that hard, I'm not even sure Apple even had anything to do with the manufacturing, and it certainly didn't require spinning up and maintaining a factory line to assemble the thing, and go through various consumer electronics approvals, and make sure the battery doesn't explode when you leave it in the car, and so on.
All of which is why, I assume, Apple will do oddball one-off non-tech products like the Pocket thing--especially when they're "collaborations" with some other company that probably require nothing but a branding agreement--but keeps their tech portfolio extremely small and focused on things they sell a lot of.
I won’t go in the audiophile territory as it is …. Bumpy,but audio player have a spot.
[...]
It is not for everyone, i guess targeting the audiophiles marked would make it an expensive niche wich is already fairly covered (Astell & Kern), but it’s a demanding niche, where they care little less about the branding and more about the quality of sound (if you are neutral some people will be mad, if it is too bright some other will, make it warm and you have another part offended….)
There's no formal definition, but I'm pretty confident in saying from the "normal consumer" perspective that a $600 DAP is an "audiophile" product. No, it's not a $3000 Walkman DAP, or a $50,000 speaker, or a $1,000 quantum-dust-infused power cord, but it's certainly beyond what the vast majority of consumers consider sufficient audio quality, and is well into the rage of, to use your words, people who are dedicated to "listening to music instead of just hearing it".
My point being the entire DAP space, at this point, is just varying levels of audiophile.
And why Apple isn't interested--it's a demanding niche,
and a small one, which just isn't what Apple usually goes for. The only statistic I could find pinned the current global DAP market at around $1.2B, which (if it's even
remotely accurate) means that if Apple took that entire market segment (which obviously isn't realistic), it would add up to less than 7% of the revenue of just various AirPods, and back-of-envelope not even a third of what Apple makes on the AirPods Max, which is by far the closest product they make in terms of target market.
It's not that nobody wants high-end audio players, or that Apple
couldn't make one, but small-volume, high-engineering-cost, demanding niche markets just is not Apple's thing. It's better served by dedicated small companies, which it is.
