Will Apple reduce their iPod line-up?

Discussion in 'iPod' started by osx11, Jan 27, 2014.

  1. osx11 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    #1
    iPod Shuffle: still makes sense. Has a specific market. Cheap.

    iPod Nano: not sure who would buy this. Could see Apple kill this one. It has an un-Apple-esque user interface and its price comes within $80 of the iPod Touch, which has an amazingly diverse usability and is clearly a much more convenient device.

    iPod Touch: Keeper! Probably the gateway drug for the iPhone.

    iPod Classic: Dinosaur Status

    -----

    I think in 2016 at the latest, Apple's iPod offerings will be:

    - iPod Shuffle
    - iPod Touch

    What do you guys think?
     
  2. Volkstaia macrumors regular

    Volkstaia

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Location:
    East Coast of the US
    #2
    I feel like the iPod nano has a market, people who have lots of music but don't want any frills. The ipod shuffle is a serious pain in the bum to navigate if you have more then 2 albums.
     
  3. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #3
    Why? Just load up a bunch of your favorites and hit play. I use mine ALL THE TIME at the gym.
     
  4. Volkstaia macrumors regular

    Volkstaia

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Location:
    East Coast of the US
    #4
    Because an iPod is a portable solution to listen to any and all of your music library, not "just your favourites". A lot of people use dedicated iPods in their cars instead of taking around a crapton of CDs.
     
  5. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #5
    Apparently "just your favorites" is what the iPod shuffle is for. Right on the shuffle page it says "Never leave a favorite tune behind."

    http://www.apple.com/ipod-shuffle/

    If you want to carry around your whole music library the iPod Classic is great, but for a lot of people it is bulky and the capacity is unnecessary. I have an old iPod video that sits in a desk drawer(unless I gave it away and forgot, maybe I should check). My 2nd gen iPod shuffle and the 6th gen iPod nano that replaced it get a ton of use at the gym, or when I'm jogging, hiking or biking.

    As for in my car, I stream everything using my iPhone which I prefer not to take with me on the previously mentioned activities.
     
  6. Altemose macrumors G3

    Altemose

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Location:
    Elkton, Maryland
    #6
    The Shuffle is simply a product that promotes iTunes. Why would anyone buy a $50 iPod Shuffle when a cheap MP3 player is only $20.00? The answer is the iTunes Store.

    The Nano is promoted as too much of an iPod Touch. It used to serve a step between the Shuffle and the Classic. Now it is running a hunkered down copy of iOS, crippled with no streaming support, and still the same storage options. I just fail to understand why anyone in their right mind would buy a device that is miniature, scaled down version of a much more powerful iPod within $80.

    The Classic is now a dying breed as many moved to streaming. I do hope that they make it Flash based and incorporate Lightning connectors into it. I really do like the form factor, and it really serves a market whom is less common but still there.
     
  7. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #7
    I think that as long as any particular iPod model is profitable Apple will keep making it because it helps sells stuff on the iTunes store.
     
  8. yinz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    #8
    Is the iPod classic still on sale? Doesn't it still use the 30-pin connector? Apple's decisions recently really perplex me, but I'm not the one making billions here..

    I think for pure music lovers, the nano is better bang for the buck if we are talking about storage space, dollar spent, and convenience. An iPod Touch is great, but even the cheapest 16GB version is still quite expensive.

    Actually, now with the iPhone 5C, I think it'd be more likely the iPod Touch get discontinued, as the younglings would rather have a phone/gaming device/music player rather than just a music player/gaming device.
     
  9. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #9
    I think this was a combination of the iPod classic not getting any updates and also having a model that wtill works on all the devices people bought.

    For pure music lovers, it depends on how much music they want to carry with them. The iPod classic would be the best for pure storage space greater than what an iPod nano can hold.

    Actually I suspect that the 5c won't be around as long as some people think. It depends on how many actually sold. And not all parents are going to buy a 4 year old a phone whereas they might buy them an iPod touch.
     
  10. yinz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    #10
    iPod Classic starts at $250. iPod Nano is the $150. Also the iPod Nano uses the lightning connector. I think all of these factors make the iPod Nano more practical. I think that is what I was getting at in my first point. Of course, dollar for dollar, iPod Classic is better, but iPod Nano is just more practical if you had to compare the two models.

    Even if the iPhone 5C won't be around for that long, there will be a multi-iPhone line up. The lower end one will conflict with the iPod Touch. Another point can be argued for the iPad Mini. I think because of the iPad Mini, the iPod Touch has been rendered obsolete. The $100ish price difference just isn't that much if you are buying your 4 year old an iDevice.

    So if you want a device in the size of an iPod Touch, get a cheap smart phone. If you want a device that has a larger screen, get an iPad Mini. If you want a music player, get an iPod Nano. I just don't see the value in an iPod Touch anymore. It does nothing well, and is not a jack of all trades.

    I have an iPod Touch 4th gen and it's basically a universal remote because of an IR dongle. If they put an IR blaster on it, an iPod Touch would have more value, but as it stands now, it's quite mediocre.
     
  11. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #11
    16GB iPod touch is $229, the 16GB iPhone 5c is $549 - that's a $229 difference. And as for the 32GB it's $299 and $649 - a $349 difference. And then there's the 64GB iPod touch for $399 which is still $149 less than the 16GB iPhone 5c. As I said, for a kid who doesn't need a phone yet, an iPod touch is the right device.

    If you want an iOS device that is the size of the iPod touch without paying for phone service, then you get an iPod touch. The iPod touch still does several things well. I get good photos on it. It's very good for a small portable book reader. Oh yeah, it still plays music well. Not to mention all the assorted apps that are really good.
     
  12. yinz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    #12
    Okay, in what scenario will you buy an iPod Touch over an iPhone?

    A) If you are strapped for cash? You wouldn't buy an iPod Touch in this case. Someone who is strapped for cash would probably opt for an Android phone as it would be around the same price and fulfill the exact same functions but have more features. It would probably also have a larger screen. For the $229 difference (which you probably won't pay outright if you are strapped for cash), you get a rear-facing camera, GPS and cellular technology, so it is a more all-rounded device

    B) For your kid? Your 4 year old would benefit greater from the iPad Mini apps as they are more immersive. Education apps are easier to see and more plentiful. Again, if you are buying your 4 year old an iDevice, the price difference probably doesn't matter to you. If they are in their teens, they would much rather have a phone. This is a fact.

    This is a very specific niche of people. First, you have to want an iOS device exclusively. This is very narrow minded. Second, you have to be oblivious as Apple is selling themselves as a premium brand. If you can't afford it, you have to be oblivious to your own financial status or the fact that Apple doesn't sell cheap products. You are reaching here and should probably look at other products. You are also oblivious to other companies. There are many great companies that make products that are the same price if not less than an iPod Touch with very similar features (albeit not running iOS). You can also buy an Android phone without paying for the phone service. It still has wifi.

    With the base-model iPod Touch prices, you probably won't get a phone with a good camera, but then again, the base-model iPod Touch doesn't have a rear facing camera. So, in this case, you'd be looking at the 32GB model iPod Touch. At that price, you can get some pretty good cameras on your phone. Also, at the 32GB pricing, you can get an iPad Mini, which has better apps and the same camera.

    To summarise, the iPod Touch is not a good:
    a. music device (iPod Shuffle/iPod Nano/iPod Classic)
    b. small all round device (Android phone/old iPhone/iPhone 5C)
    c. kids' (learning) device/media device (iPad Mini)
    d. camera (an actual camera/iPhone/iPad Mini)
     
  13. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #13
    Paying over double to get a phone instead of an iPod touch? I think you have a different idea of price doesn't matter than a lot of people. And as for wanting an iOS device exclusively? How is that narrow minded? It's no more narrow minded than someone who won't buy an iOS device because it's from Apple. I like the way iOS devices integrate with no hassle via iCloud to OS X.

    And as for who would buy an iPod touch that's an adult? Some people have basic flip phones with inexpensive service and an iPod touch. There are many reasons to get an iPod touch even if you can't see them.
     
  14. yinz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    #14
    When talking about buying a $150+ for a 4 year old, I think I pretty much nailed it.

    That is narrow minded. I do not agree with people who won't buy an iOS device because it's from Apple. I completely agree here, but this was never my point. My point is that it IS narrow minded.

    I get that many people don't want to sign up for expensive data plans and use feature phones, but I don't see these very same people using an iPod Touch, unless it was given to them or an older generation iPod Touch they had purchased previously.

    Of course everyone has their own reasons for having an iPod Touch, but would these people not find suitable replacements in other similarly valued and sized devices? Probably not. We are just debating about the most expendable iPod here, and in my honest opinion, that is the iPod Touch.
     
  15. Shanghaichica macrumors 603

    Shanghaichica

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2013
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    I have an iPod touch and I'm an adult. Why did I get one? At the time I bought it I had an android phone, not a cheap one, a Samsung galaxy note, but I found that I didn't think it handled my music to my satisfaction. Also I wasn't happy with the android ecosystem, I felt it was lacking. On top of that I and tons of apps and Video content that I'd bought from Apple over the years and had no way of getting access to them. At that time it made sense for me to buy an iPod touch. I used it for a year, in conjunction with my galaxy phone, an iPad mini and a few android tablets. This month I decided to get rid of my android phone and get an iPhone as I couldn't see the point of carrying round my phone and iPod touch.

    I think the iPod touch is a great product, not all that different to the iPhone. It's expensive but I think if you have a feature phone/ non apple phone it's worth the price. Out of the iPods, I think it has the most value as it does more than just play music. iPod touch sales make up the majority of Apple's iPod sales, so I think it will stick around longer than the rest.
     
  16. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #16
    Why wouldn't they buy a new iPod touch? There are several people here in the forums who say they use a basic phone plus iPod touch. Remember not everyone places the same value on having a smartphone. And not everyone wants to spend the monthly fee for a data plan. And running down your battery on the iPod doesn't take out your phone service as well.

    How is the iPod that sells the best the most expendable? Also remember that any design development done for the iPhone trickles down in to the iPod touch so updating the iPod touch is not that expensive at all for Apple.
     
  17. yinz, Jan 29, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2014

    yinz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    #17
    I don't know the numbers, but if it sells, then I'm sure Apple will keep it around. I don't think they would keep it around for "several people" though. "Several people" around here loved the 17" MacBook Pro, but they didn't keep that. I just don't think Apple caters to the minority (anymore).

    Interesting you say this. I always hear that Android phones are better for transferring files freely and how people hate iTunes. Either you represent a small group of people that likes dealing with iTunes, or I am around people that hate something that works. I actually don't mind it at all.

    But the point here is, you got an iPhone and got rid of the iPod Touch...
     
  18. Jessica Lares macrumors G3

    Jessica Lares

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Location:
    Near Dallas, Texas, USA
    #18
    I too bought a feature phone and an iPod Touch because it's cost efficient, and I'm 25. I have been using iTunes since 2003, so I have a lot of music and streaming would be a stupid thing to invest to because of it. I can buy those 5 to 8 new songs I like every month for the same price of Spotify.

    In 5 years, I will save $3,600 by doing it this way. Probably will have the same iPod too.
     
  19. yinz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    #19
    But Spotify is free... :confused:
     
  20. Jessica Lares macrumors G3

    Jessica Lares

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Location:
    Near Dallas, Texas, USA
    #20
    With ads, and in shuffle mode, very POOR radio options. I could stand the ads if only the actual selections were good. Hence I do use iTunes Radio.

    I don't make playlists, I let Genius do that for me. The new Genius Shuffle is very, very, very good too.
     
  21. Shanghaichica macrumors 603

    Shanghaichica

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2013
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    I don't particularly like using iTunes and agree that file management is better on android, but iTunes gets the job done.However overall I find that the iPhone suits me better than any of the android devices I've used.

    ----------

    You Also need an internet connection. That's why I'll never rely on streaming services. I like to listen to my music when I'm on the tube (subway) and there isn't wifi or data connectivity. Also in some places connectivity may be patchy.
     
  22. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #22
    Spotify and Google Play Music All Access both have an offline mode that allows you to download songs to your device and listen to them without an internet connection.
     
  23. carjakester macrumors 68020

    carjakester

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Location:
    Midwest
    #23
    this, the shuffle is perfect for working out, you almost can't even feel its there, and the battery life is phenomenal, i leave mine in my gym bag and it lasts for a month or two without needing to be charged.
     
  24. Jessica Lares macrumors G3

    Jessica Lares

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Location:
    Near Dallas, Texas, USA
    #24
    Yes, but I still own 20+ years of music. Why am I going to pay money to do the same thing I can already do with my offline music?

    Even if I got an iPhone again (and with the pressure from my parents, I am most likely getting a 32GB iPhone 5C sadly), I wouldn't use streaming. I really like the Music app and always have.
     
  25. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #25
    Google play music doesn't require you to pay anything for their regular service that allows you to upload 20k songs.

    I like the iOS music app as well, but I got used to the Google Music app on my android phone and the iOS version is pretty great as well.
     

Share This Page