• With the number of recent threads from brand new users that we have observed in our Classifieds forum selling goods under questionable circumstances, we have instituted a new policy restricting new members of iLounge from posting new threads in the Classifieds forum until they have reached "Regular Member" status.

    New users become Regular Members once they have made 10 posts and been a member of the iLounge Forums for at least 7 days. Prior to this time, members may still read the Classifieds forum, and even respond to existing threads for items being sold by other members, but they may not create new threads advertising their own items for sale.

    This will hopefully help to protect our user community by discouraging fraudulent users from signing up and posting classified ads without having at least a very basic level of established membership in our forums.

    Obviously all users should still exercise due diligence when making use of our classifieds forums, but we hope that this restriction will help to decrease the number of blatantly fraudulent ads that we have been seeing in recent weeks.

    Please be sure to review our Classified Forum Policy for more information.

Why Apple Won't Make 6Gen Wide/Touchscreen

GO TO ADMIN PANEL > ADD-ONS AND INSTALL VERTIFORO SIDEBAR TO SEE FORUMS AND SIDEBAR

Surf Monkey

New member
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
3,566
Points
0
Age
59
Location
The City of Roses
Website
www.dvdinmypants.com
jhollington said:
The point I"m trying to make, however, is that the number of people who need more than 8GB to store their music is a small enough segment of the population that Apple is not likely to leave the existing 5G iPod stagnant just to appeal to the segment of the market that needs a 30GB/80GB+ unit to only store music. and doesn't want or need other features such as video.

You keep mixing up ideas and making unwarranted assumptions. I've never said that Apple would "leave the existing 5G iPod stagnant." Those are your words, not mine. What I said was that you have no corner on objectivity. Sales figures for Nanos do not necessarily indicate the lack of "need" for larger capacity. Surveys of the size of individuals' libraries do not necessarily indicate a solid standard for what the average user "needs" in terms of storage space. Furthermore, your continued attempt to divorce the wide range of content that the flagship iPod can store from music is patently absurd. It supports your argument but it doesn't reflect the real world. Sure, I may not have 80 gig worth of music to store but I DO have enough things to store on my iPod that it all won't fit in 80 gigs. By far the largest single element of that storage requirement is music. No doubt that's pretty common. I've never suggested that Apple needs to cater to people who only want to use the flagship iPod as a music player. What I've been saying and continue to say is that YOU have no ability to say what the average user "needs" in terms of capacity. It's not an objective target, no matter how much you say it is.
 

JazzyMac

Jazzy Smooth
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
2,098
Points
0
Location
Jupiter...But Closer To The Sun
I need a 100GB music player for the same reason I needed a 40gb music player. I was scared the movers would destroy my computer or steal my cds. They stole my cds.

Lighten up folks. A quick look at the Apple bestseller list shows the ipod as #1. Shrug.
 

Surf Monkey

New member
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
3,566
Points
0
Age
59
Location
The City of Roses
Website
www.dvdinmypants.com
JazzyMac said:
I need a 100GB music player for the same reason I needed a 40gb music player. I was scared the movers would destroy my computer or steal my cds. They stole my cds.

Lighten up folks. A quick look at the Apple bestseller list shows the ipod as #1. Shrug.

Just one example of why someone might need more than 80 gig.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
13,228
Points
36
Age
51
Location
Toronto, Canada
Website
www.ilounge.com
Surf Monkey said:
You keep mixing up ideas and making unwarranted assumptions. I've never said that Apple would "leave the existing 5G iPod stagnant." Those are your words, not mine.
Actually, I'm not mixing up any ideas... The topic of this thread is based specifically on whether or not Apple is going to add more multi-media like features to the next-generation iPod, or remain with a device that retains the present "iconic" look and feel.

You seem to be responding as if my comments are directly specifically at you, and they are not. This is an open thread, and the topic of the thread is still "Why Apple Won't Make 6Gen Wide/Touchscreen" and it is that point to which I'm still responding, and specifically trying to clarify my previous comments and the reasons and context for those comments.

All other discussions are tangental to that, and my only point is that the demand for a high-capacity player that is primarily focused on music playback is not likely high enough to justify Apple remaining with the current design to appease what would appear to be a relatively small segment of the potential consumer base.

What I said was that you have no corner on objectivity. Sales figures for Nanos do not necessarily indicate the lack of "need" for larger capacity. Surveys of the size of individuals' libraries do not necessarily indicate a solid standard for what the average user "needs" in terms of storage space.
Actually, sales figures for Nanos are a very good indication of what the needs of users are. If people truly needed higher-capacity players, they wouldn't be buying iPod nanos, particularly when they can get 30GB for the price of 8GB. The same would hold even more true for the iPod mini.

Yes, there are other considerations such as size, aesthetic qualities, and the solid-state memory that go into these decisions... However, if people truly needed the additional capacity, that would be an overridding consideration, regardless of these other factors (ie, "sure it's smaller and cool looking, but I can't store enough stuff on it, so forget it").

At the end of the day, Apple is going to be looking at the surveys, and the sales figures, and all of this other data when they decide what to do in terms of the direction to take the product in. They will likely reach the exact same conclusions based on the available data. These conclusions may or may not be entirely correct, but they're the logical response.

Remember again here as well that we're talking about the average user -- the person on the street who reflects the majority of the DAP-buying public. When I say "average" user, you seem to be extending this as if I'm somehow describing every user, which I'm most certainly not... There could be 50,000 users who want a high-capacity audio player that is exactly like the 5G iPod and have no desire for a touch-screen widescreen device. However, even 50,000 people is a drop in the bucket when 100 million iPods have been sold.

This is not about what specific users want or need, and it's not about what every user wants or needs... It's about what the majority of users are going to be looking for in a product.

Apple, or any other business, must primarily consider the needs of the majority of its consumer base when developing a product... We only need to look at numerous other products in history to see what happens when you market to the needs of a few. Apple has managed to avoid this, and that is why they have sold 100 million iPods.

Furthermore, your continued attempt to divorce the wide range of content that the flagship iPod can store from music is patently absurd. It supports your argument but it doesn't reflect the real world. Sure, I may not have 80 gig worth of music to store but I DO have enough things to store on my iPod that it all won't fit in 80 gigs.
The fact is that it supports my argument only because it's the only argument I'm trying to make.... That I believe that Apple will evolve the 5G iPod into a more multimedia-focused device, rather than concentrating solely on audio playback.

Sure, but those "things" are why you bought a video iPod. Those "things" are also what is going to interest you in a future-generation iPod that provides better support for those other "things" like video and photos.

Even if music is your primary focus, and the video is just an ancillary feature, the reality is that Apple will be left trying to decide whether it's more practical to continue to produce and market a device to that niche consumer base who only wants a high-capacity audio player and occasionally dabble in video, or to produce a device that is far better-suited for video playback.

By far the largest single element of that storage requirement is music. No doubt that's pretty common. I've never suggested that Apple needs to cater to people who only want to use the flagship iPod as a music player. What I've been saying and continue to say is that YOU have no ability to say what the average user "needs" in terms of capacity. It's not an objective target, no matter how much you say it is.
Again, I'm not suggesting that you said anything of the sort, so please don't take my responses as being directed specifically at you. They are directed at the topic of this thread, and the topic, as proposed by the original poster, was that Apple is going to keep the 5G iPod stagnant, and that Apple therefore is going to cater to people who only (or at least primarily) want to use the flagship iPod as a music player. I'm not suggesting that you are saying this... I'm merely contributing to the debate in the thread in general, and trying to clarify what I was originally saying and why I was saying it.

However, to respond to your specific comments, what the AVERAGE user needs does need to be at least considered as an objective target for any company to be able to successfully produce and manufacture a product. The target may change from time to time, and how well a company is able to measure such a target will determine their success in producing any product. However, when a company produces a product, they are going to consider market research, surveys, and sales figures of existing products. All of this data presently points to the fact that the average user (again, not every user) does not presently require a high-capacity device only for music. This much is fairly obvious from the available data.

I'm not saying this won't change a year or two from now, although Code Monkey makes some excellent points about the amount of music that a person can listen to, which leaves this as a fairly static target for a device that only plays music.

As for the next-generation iPod... All of the above, and everything I've said thus far is intended to demonstrate why I believe that the next-generation iPod will not take a form similar to the present 5G, but will have to expand into the realm of a more multimedia device.

JazzyMac said:
I need a 100GB music player for the same reason I needed a 40gb music player. I was scared the movers would destroy my computer or steal my cds. They stole my cds.
Yes, that's an example of a perfectly valid reason, but you're still in the minority of users who think this way. After all, if everyone thought the way you do, then Apple would have never sold a single iPod nano or iPod mini because they wouldn't be big enough.

Lighten up folks. A quick look at the Apple bestseller list shows the ipod as #1. Shrug.
I'm not sure what sales figures you're looking at, but the "iPod nano" is clearly number one on every list I've observed. The next iPod-based position seems to flip-flop between the iPod Shuffle and the 5G iPod, depending on the day of the week, and I'll certainly agree that the Shuffle cannot be considered a valid comparison to either the Nano or the full-size iPod, as it's far too different from either of its larger cousings both in price range and design to make for a fair comparison.
 
Last edited:

Code Monkey

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
5,201
Points
0
Location
Midstate New York
Surf Monkey said:
Just one example of why someone might need more than 80 gig.
For the price of a single large capacity iPod, you could buy a set of four large capacity hard drives on eBay and store 3+ times the capacity of a single iPod on each of them and then keep three of them at three different offsite locations at any given time so you could never lose your music short of planet Earth being destroyed. Or you could have one "backup" in a small, breakable, often stolen DAP, your choice.
 

Surf Monkey

New member
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
3,566
Points
0
Age
59
Location
The City of Roses
Website
www.dvdinmypants.com
Code Monkey said:
For the price of a single large capacity iPod, you could buy a set of four large capacity hard drives on eBay and store 3+ times the capacity of a single iPod on each of them and then keep three of them at three different offsite locations at any given time so you could never lose your music short of planet Earth being destroyed. Or you could have one "backup" in a small, breakable, often stolen DAP, your choice.
Completely irrelevant.
 

Surf Monkey

New member
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
3,566
Points
0
Age
59
Location
The City of Roses
Website
www.dvdinmypants.com
jhollington: bluster all you want. I maintain that claiming to know what most iPod users need in terms of storage space is pure fantasy. It's a shifting target. Every iPod owner is different. As I said before, Apple clearly thinks that the consumer wants more space. If they didn't they wouldn't ever increase the size of any iPod's flash or hard drive. Why bother? The original 10 gig iPod has plenty of space for the average user, right?

Give it up, boys. Apple will continue to increase the capacity of every iPod they make. Count on it.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
13,228
Points
36
Age
51
Location
Toronto, Canada
Website
www.ilounge.com
Give it up, boys. Apple will continue to increase the capacity of every iPod they make. Count on it.

Are you actually reading this thread, or just skimming posts and drawing incorrect conclusions? I have absolutely no idea why you continue to insist that anybody in this thread is saying Apple won't increase capacity... You seem to be looking for an argument that doesn't exist in this thread, which means that you're either obtuse or you're trolling.... I haven't quite decided which yet.

Even if you misinterpreted an earlier post, I have now clarified my point several times over....

My point was never about whether or not Apple is going to increase the capacity of any of their iPods. Only a fool would think that they won't, and in fact I've said several times already that we'll probably have 16GB Nanos and 100GB+ full-size iPods by this time next year. I know there's another thread in this forum where somebody put forth the idea that the 80GB iPod is more than enough and there's no need to increase it. That's another thread, and I happen to disagree with that point also.

However, again the original subject of this thread is "Why Apple Won't Make 6Gen Wide/Touchscreen", and my comments are directed at that, and only that.

Again, based on the original hypothesis in this thread, the idea that Apple would keep the 5G iPod in its present design as a primarily audio-focused device merely to appeal to those with large music collections is extremely unlikely. That is my only point, and the only area in which capacity fits into the equation.... Users who want a device that primarily plays music and don't care about video are buying the Nano in droves, as evidenced by the sales figures. Storage capacity is very obviously not an overriding concern for people who only want to listen to music and don't care about storing anything else, and the sales figures would clearly indicate that a lot of people fit into this category.

In other words, I strongly believe that Apple is going to shift the design of the next-generation iPod into something that is more multimedia-focused. They will also increase the capacity of course. This may upset some people who have large music libraries who want a high-capacity device that is primarily music-focused like the 5G iPod, but these people are very liikely a small minority compared to those who actually want more video playback features. Even today, most people with a full-size iPod are using the storage capacity for a lot of different things... But those "things" as you also point out include a lot more than just music, and it's those other things that are driving the storage capacity more quickly than the size of people's music libraries.

But let me repeat this one more time, since you seem to be missing the point of this thread... This is not about whether or not Apple is going to create higher-capacity devices... It's about whether or not they'll maintain the basic 5G design into the 6th Generation, or move toward a design that is more in-line with what they're doing with the iPhone (and no, not merging the devices, but going in the direction of an iPhone-style touchscreen interface).
 
Last edited:

JazzyMac

Jazzy Smooth
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
2,098
Points
0
Location
Jupiter...But Closer To The Sun
Code Monkey said:
For the price of a single large capacity iPod, you could buy a set of four large capacity hard drives on eBay and store 3+ times the capacity of a single iPod on each of them and then keep three of them at three different offsite locations at any given time so you could never lose your music short of planet Earth being destroyed. Or you could have one "backup" in a small, breakable, often stolen DAP, your choice.
Do those big ugly hard drives you mention play music? Don't think so.

Why not have the best of both worlds?
 

Code Monkey

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
5,201
Points
0
Location
Midstate New York
JazzyMac said:
Do those big ugly hard drives you mention play music? Don't think so.

Why not have the best of both worlds?
Now that is irrelevant. While I am guilty of hammering tangential points in this thread, people should at least attempt to read the subjects, on and off subject, before making up further irrelevant subjects:

Surf Monkey's assinine point was that having a large capacity iPod is a justified *need* because it was purchased by someone as backup for their CDs. Never mind that at most you could only fit about 30 CDs on an 80GB iPod as an actual backup, iPods are not backup devices. Sure, people uneducated enough about money and electronics do use them as such, but it's awful hard to justify a small, prone to theft, loss, and breakage electronic device that costs $4.30/GB for storage when even CD-Rs cost a fraction of that, and deals can be found that drive the cost per gigabyte down to less than $0.15 for hard drive storage (and you don't even have to hunt to find name brand, quality drives for $0.25 or less per GB).

If your goal is to back up your music, the point I was replying to, an iPod does not even qualify as a grossly inefficient solution.
 

kylo4

New member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,662
Points
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
How about this hypothesis: The 6 Gen iPod will be longer than the current one, thinner, have a widescreen but maintain a clickwheel and no touchscreen. It will have 100GB. The 7'th Gen will offer touchscreen and maintain the same design as the 6'th gen or tweak it a little.

There is just no way that Apple would go ahead and create the same product while trying to promote the iPhone. Before you point fingers and say "the nano is this, the nano is that". The nano is a) a smaller iPod. b) The nano is on the same product line and is a music device. c) Cannot play video and d) has the cool factor and is "hot" which is why people will pay the same price for an 8GB iPod Nano with its small size, aluminum casing and jogging capabilities as they will for a 30GB iPod.

The iPhone is a phone with touchscreen, internet, a camera and iPod capabilities. I am not stating that the iPhone is a replacement iPod, nor that it should be. What I am saying is that a lot of customers will purchase it because of it having coverflow and a touchscreen iPod like feature, regardless of how many songs it holds and that it is primarily a phone. It just has that "I have to have it" feature to it.

So my point is, by Apple going ahead and releasing an iPod that is very similar a few months later, that could completely ruin the iPhone. We're not talking Nano's and Shuffle's here, we're talking about two different product lines offering the same thing. You buy an iPod, you are getting that line. You buy an iPod over an iPhone that is hurting that line. That is why I say in two years time Apple might do it. I think the 6 gen will tweak up the forumla and just present a widescreen, like that Creative player. It won't take iPhones best feature and run with it.

It doesn't matter that the iPod will just have video and audio playback, with a touchscreen it will take away so much business from the iPhone. Why do that when you could buy a Moto Razr or a phone with internet which can cost $50 now with a 3 year plan, and then go ahead and buy an iPod. It just doesn't compute, and I'm sure Jobs wouldn't do that.
 

Code Monkey

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
5,201
Points
0
Location
Midstate New York
kylo4 said:
There is just no way that Apple would go ahead and create the same product while trying to promote the iPhone. Before you point fingers and say "the nano is this, the nano is that". The nano is a) a smaller iPod. b) The nano is on the same product line and is a music device. c) Cannot play video and d) has the cool factor and is "hot" which is why people will pay the same price for an 8GB iPod Nano with its small size, aluminum casing and jogging capabilities as they will for a 30GB iPod.
Everyone against modifying the 6G iPod seems to think that the average consumer is a ######ed rhesus monkey. Other than video, the nano and 5G ARE the same device no matter what you think. Same user interface, same physical control, and so on. Nobody gets confused or turned off: they decide which they need based on their particular differences and they buy it, and most are buying the nano, ergo, Apple needs to do something to spruce up the large iPod, and turning it into an improved Zune ain't it.

Give me a wide screen and completely rehauled interface and I'll find myself looking at my 5G & nano and wondering if I can justify another iPod. Give me the 5.6G iPod and it won't be until your hypothetical 7G-finally-becoming-good-again-iPod that I'd consider upgrading. Other than the few die-hards in this thread and others, the majority opinion out there seems to agree with that sentiment.
 
Last edited:

kylo4

New member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,662
Points
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
The nano and 5 Gen aren't the same device, and anyone could argue that. One is smaller, one can jog with it, and one has longer battery life, aluminum casing and different colours. You don't need to choose between black or white, you can choose between 5 different colours. People like choice as well.

But the point was missed. I said that the nano, video and shuffle are the same product line, so they all make profit. It says 100 million sold, that could be 20 million shuffles, 70 million nanos and 10 million videos for all you know. The iPhone is a different brand. The Macbook isn't an iMac is it? Is it!?!? Therefore you don't want to confuse the customer or take away business from your other products. The nano is a smaller, more simplified version of the iPod. Much like how the Mac Mini is a simplified version of the iMac.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
13,228
Points
36
Age
51
Location
Toronto, Canada
Website
www.ilounge.com
kylo4 said:
How about this hypothesis: The 6 Gen iPod will be longer than the current one, thinner, have a widescreen but maintain a clickwheel and no touchscreen. It will have 100GB. The 7'th Gen will offer touchscreen and maintain the same design as the 6'th gen or tweak it a little.
That's certainly possible, but I'm skeptical that Apple has put a lot of R&D into the iPod side of the iPhone solely to market it as a phone.

Further, there are already people who are going to avoid the iPhone for a whole myriad of reasons, one of which is hoping that the 6G iPod will bring some of the same interface features to it.

There is just no way that Apple would go ahead and create the same product while trying to promote the iPhone.
But you're operating under the assumption that anybody who desires a widescreen touchscreen interface will automatically buy the iPhone if no other product is available with that interface. I think this is extremely unlikely, since the very design and marketing of the iPhone precludes this.

In other words, there are a lot of people out there who won't buy the iPhone no matter what, either because it requires them to change carriers, or because they're perfectly happy with the cell phone they have, and want to keep their iPod and cell phone separate.

Apple releasing a widescreen, touchscreen 6G iPod that is built in the style of the iPhone after the iPhone is very unlikely to cannibalize the iPhone sales, because most people won't buy the iPhone just for the interface. The few who likely would will very likely do so right away, well before the 6G iPod is released, and are such a small minority to once again be beneath Apple's notice, in the same way those who want a high-capacity music-focused player are.

Before you point fingers and say "the nano is this, the nano is that". The nano is a) a smaller iPod. b) The nano is on the same product line and is a music device. c) Cannot play video and d) has the cool factor and is "hot" which is why people will pay the same price for an 8GB iPod Nano with its small size, aluminum casing and jogging capabilities as they will for a 30GB iPod.
You are essentially correct that there are other reasons to justify the purchase of a Nano beyond the capacity. However, if Surf Monkey's assertions that most people needs more capacity were true, then the additional capacity offered by the 30GB iPod would be enough of an overriding consideration to cancel out these other benefits.

Further, the iPod mini has far fewer of the advantages that that Nano possesses, and it still sold ridiculously well, despite having a monochrome screen and a price-per-GB that was almost absurd compared to the full-size 4G iPod.

So it's not that people don't have other reasons for wanting an iPod nano, and I'm sure for some people the capacity-versus-features is a trade-off... However, the fact is that this demonstrates that most people who are buying the iPod nano do not need the extra capacity... Or in the very least, they need that capacity far less than they value the other advantages of the Nano.

The iPhone is a phone with touchscreen, internet, a camera and iPod capabilities. I am not stating that the iPhone is a replacement iPod, nor that it should be. What I am saying is that a lot of customers will purchase it because of it having coverflow and a touchscreen iPod like feature, regardless of how many songs it holds and that it is primarily a phone. It just has that "I have to have it" feature to it.
That may be true if Apple provides a way to buy it without a plan, but that seems unlikely based on their present alliance with Cingular, and similar alliances that are likely to be forged in other international markets as well.

Further, the iPhone will continue to be available in the U.S. only for the forseeable future, so the alternative is for Apple to continue to taunt their worldwide cusotmer base with a device that the rest of us cannot possibly get any access to, no matter what our personal preferences will be for phones or cellular providers.

Ultimately, I don't believe that Apple is going to start to merge any other features beyond merely the interface. Those who think that the iPod will become a PSP-like device and add WiFi Internet browsing and e-mail are probably far off the mark. However, Apple can migrate the interface to the 6G iPod without detracting from the iPhone sales, because people who are looking for an iPhone are very clearly looking for a different sort of device... They're looking for the phone and the Internet communications capabilities, not just the iPod side.

Again, there are those who will buy an iPhone just because it's a cool iPod, but they're a fraction of the overall market. Most people will look at the capacity, look at the purchase requirements (two-year Cingular contract), and decide pretty quickly to pass.

Only the most die-hard iPod enthusiasts are going to even consider buying the iPod just because it's a phone. The majority will otherwise give it a miss.

It doesn't matter that the iPod will just have video and audio playback, with a touchscreen it will take away so much business from the iPhone. Why do that when you could buy a Moto Razr or a phone with internet which can cost $50 now with a 3 year plan, and then go ahead and buy an iPod. It just doesn't compute, and I'm sure Jobs wouldn't do that.
That would explain why they haven't released the 6G iPod yet, because that would cannibalize sales of the iPhone. However, by the time September rolls around, everybody who would have jumped on the iPhone exclusively for the iPod feature will have already done so. The iPhone early-adopter ship will have sailed, and the iPhone sales will quickly calm down to only those people who want a phone.
 

Surf Monkey

New member
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
3,566
Points
0
Age
59
Location
The City of Roses
Website
www.dvdinmypants.com
jhollington said:
Again, based on the original hypothesis in this thread, the idea that Apple would keep the 5G iPod in its present design as a primarily audio-focused device merely to appeal to those with large music collections is extremely unlikely.

...

In other words, I strongly believe that Apple is going to shift the design of the next-generation iPod into something that is more multimedia-focused. They will also increase the capacity of course. This may upset some people who have large music libraries who want a high-capacity device that is primarily music-focused like the 5G iPod, but these people are very liikely a small minority compared to those who actually want more video playback features.

See, it's funny that you accuse me of not reading the thread and then post this. I've never called for a "primarily music-focused device." What I've said again and again is that I seriously doubt that Apple will make iPod into iPhone Jr. I think it's obvious that Apple will bring many of the iPod interface features from iPhone over to the flagship line. What I question is the full front face being a screen (on topic) and that the capacity won't get a significant upgrade before the end of the year.

You yourself have strongly suggested that the Nano will satisfy most of the market since it's the most popular iPod... and then go on to say that the "music focused market" is too small to support much larger capacities. The Nano market IS completely music focused. The Nano's capacity goes up with each rev. I have no doubt in my mind that an 80 or a 120 gig Nano would be a HUGE success. So there's a major contradiction in what you're arguing.

Ultimately, I don't think we're far off in opinion. The main sticking point seems to be that you characterize my argument over and over again as "Apple should make a huge capacity iPod in the mold of the 5.5G in order to appeal to people who want to use the device as a music player and a music player only." That's not what I'm saying.
 

Surf Monkey

New member
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
3,566
Points
0
Age
59
Location
The City of Roses
Website
www.dvdinmypants.com
jhollington said:
You are essentially correct that there are other reasons to justify the purchase of a Nano beyond the capacity. However, if Surf Monkey's assertions that most people needs more capacity were true, then the additional capacity offered by the 30GB iPod would be enough of an overriding consideration to cancel out these other benefits.
Why do you keep mischaracterizing my argument? I never claimed to know how much capacity people needed. YOU DID. You've suggested again and again that the average user doesn't need more than 8 gig. You base that assumption on logic that you freely admit above is flawed. Then you accuse me of taking positions I never took.

As I've said above, the popularity of the Nano is based on many factors, not just capacity. There are many users no doubt who would love more capacity but simply can't work a full sized iPod into their plans. Your suggestion that anyone who wanted more capacity would just buy a 30 gig iPod presents a false choice. For many people the size is more important, even though they "need" more capacity to fit all the music they'd like to have with them.

Additionally, I agree with kylo4 that iPod is not iPhone and iPhone is not iPod. The idea that the two product lines would converge to the point that they both seemed to be different aspects of the same product seems like a bad plan to me. Could Apple do it anyway? Only they know. Personally, I'm still betting that they'll do everything they can to make the iPod line distinct from the iPhone line. That doesn't mean that iPod won't get a wide screen, just that it will continue to be distinct from iPhone, so much so that you can tell at a glance which is which.

Look, I'm not claiming that I know what Apple will do and I'm not claiming that I know how much capacity average users need. I've been wrong in the past and I'll be wrong in the future. What I'm taking issue with is your and Code Monkey's assertion that the average user "doesn't need more than 8 gig of storage space" and that the iPod will essentially merge with the iPhone in terms of form factor and graphical interface.
 

kylo4

New member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,662
Points
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
I agree with Surf Monkey. As I said somewhere else, Apple might do a widescreen iPod, but not a touchscreen for 2 or 3 years possibly. Making it widescreen would make it nice enough. The iPod built Apple to what it is now, they screw that up and they could be finished. Remember "New Coke"?

That's like: ooh I just spent $500 on a phone with a contract with Cingular and its touchscreen and has a widescreen iPod. What's that? They just released an iPod for $400 with the same features and I can buy a phone thats unlocked for $40! Dammit!
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
13,228
Points
36
Age
51
Location
Toronto, Canada
Website
www.ilounge.com
Surf Monkey said:
See, it's funny that you accuse me of not reading the thread and then post this. I've never called for a "primarily music-focused device." What I've said again and again is that I seriously doubt that Apple will make iPod into iPhone Jr.
Not all of my comments are directed specifically at what you're saying. I'm trying to clarify my original position.

You yourself have strongly suggested that the Nano will satisfy most of the market since it's the most popular iPod... and then go on to say that the "music focused market" is too small to support much larger capacities. The Nano market IS completely music focused. The Nano's capacity goes up with each rev. I have no doubt in my mind that an 80 or a 120 gig Nano would be a HUGE success. So there's a major contradiction in what you're arguing.
No, I didn't say that the "Music-focused market is too small to support much larger capacities" what I'm saying is that the "Music-focused market that demands larger capacities is too small" to justify Apple leaving the iPod as a mere music player.

If most people were truly demanding larger capacities, the iPod nano wouldn't be selling as well as it is.

On the other hand, if there was an 80GB flash-based iPod nano available today for the same price as an 8GB nano, of course people would buy it. But they wouldn't buy it because they need the space... They'd buy it because they might as well.

I just returned my 40GB Apple TV in favour of a 160GB Apple TV, since my second one was still within the return period. I don't need 160GB of storage, but for the additional price, I figure I might as well take it since I still have the option of returning the 40GB model I just bought. If I didn't have that option, I probably couldn't be bothered, since the way in which I use the Apple TV doesn't require the extra storage space (I stream most of my library anyway). However, I want a 160GB Apple TV, at this point I don't need one.

In fact, perhaps our difference of opinion in this area is based on the distinction between the words "need" and "want." I think it is fair to say that most users want more storage space, all other things being equal. However, I have personally spoken to dozens of people who own iPod nanos, and I can tell you that the majority of them don't even have half the capacity used up. Therefore, they don't need this capacity. If they were offered a higher-capacity device for the same price, however, most would certainly want it.

Why do you keep mischaracterizing my argument? I never claimed to know how much capacity people needed. YOU DID. You've suggested again and again that the average user doesn't need more than 8 gig. You base that assumption on logic that you freely admit above is flawed. Then you accuse me of taking positions I never took.
I'm not mischaracteritizing your argument. The last thing that you said was "Give it up, boys. Apple will continue to increase the capacity of every iPod they make. Count on it." To me it's pretty clear that you're trying to argue a point that nobody in this thread is actually disagreeing with.

I can't find a single post where myself or anybody else in this thread ever suggested that Apple won't increase the capacity of the iPod. I have in fact said the very opposite, so to continue to respond as if I'm arguing this point is a waste of everybody's time, since you're arguing a point that I agree with you on.

However, what I have said is that the average user who wants a music playback device doesn't generally need more than 8GB. This much is obvious by the sales figures for the Nano.

Two years ago, the same conclusion could have been reached by looking at the sales of the iPod Mini.

This is not about every user... It's about the average user. The majority of people that Apple will be targeting with their products. Since Apple cannot realistically survey every iPod owner and potential iPod owner on the planet, they will attempt to infer what they can from the data that is available. That data pretty clearly indicates that a lot of people who are looking for a device that is primarily a music player are buying the iPod nano. Further, since the iPod Nano has 8GB of capacity for the price of 30GB of capacity on the full-size iPod, it does say something about the actual storage requirements of those people who are buying the nano.

On the other hand, a user who wants to store more than just their audio will certainly need additional capacity, and there is a place for those users. However, that device is the full-size iPod, which will of course continue to also increase in size. However, since most of the people who are buying the full-size iPod are doing so for the other features, rather than the additional capacity, it makes sense that Apple will expand upon those other features.

As I've said above, the popularity of the Nano is based on many factors, not just capacity. There are many users no doubt who would love more capacity but simply can't work a full sized iPod into their plans. Your suggestion that anyone who wanted more capacity would just buy a 30 gig iPod presents a false choice. For many people the size is more important, even though they "need" more capacity to fit all the music they'd like to have with them.
Yes, but surely "many" users doesn't necessarily mean the "majority" of users. It is unlikely that the Nano would be selling as well as it did if the majority of users truly needed additional capacity for their music.

Certainly some users are forced to make that choice, and the same also held true with the iPod mini. However, for many users the desire for more space is easily outpaced by the other features offered by the iPod nano.

It's all about priorities. The one thing that I'm sure you can agree on is that a great many people need a smaller player, a more colourful player, or a player more suited for an active lifestyle, more than they need storage space.... and again, I'm talking about people with audio players here.

Additionally, I agree with kylo4 that iPod is not iPhone and iPhone is not iPod.....
Yes, I'm sure it will be distinct in a great many ways, and Apple would be silly to make it look like a complete clone of the iPhone.

On the other hand, adding the interface that they designed for the iPhone's iPod portion to the 6G iPod seems inevitable to me. No company spends that much effort designing a whole new interface paradigm and then limits it to a product that they at best hope to sell 90% fewer of.

The iPhone will never sell as well as the iPod. Even if it really turned out to be the revolutionary "next big thing" that Apple is hoping for, the requirements of the average user would see to it that the iPhone would remain a niche device at best.... Quite simply, not everybody needs a phone like that, and even fewer want their phone and their iPod merged into the same device.

Therefore, as much as Apple is hoping to reinvent the world of telephone technology, they are going to need to leverage this R&D into the iPod just in order to justify the money they've spent on it, since it's very unlikely they will ever recoup these costs from a phone device alone.

What I'm taking issue with is your and Code Monkey's assertion that the average user "doesn't need more than 8 gig of storage space" and that the iPod will essentially merge with the iPhone in terms of form factor and graphical interface.
Again, just to clarify, what I"m stating is that the average user who wants a music playback device (again, not every user, just the average iPod buyer) has pretty much proven that a device with capacities of 8GB or lower are more than sufficient for them at this point in time.

The only point I've tried to make is that the need for video capabilities outpaces the need for increased storage capacity for audio content only. Those folks who want a high-capacity iPod that looks and feels like the 5G just for the sake of storing a large music library are not in the majority of iPod owners, and therefore not a significant customer base for Apple. These considerations therefore do not factor significantly into Apple's decisions regarding the design of the next-generation full-size iPod.

Again, the debate is about whether the iPod design will remain more or less as-is, or whether it will evolve into something more advanced. Further, the word "merge" is inappropriate in that sense, since just because two devices share the same interface does not make them the same device.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
13,228
Points
36
Age
51
Location
Toronto, Canada
Website
www.ilounge.com
kylo4 said:
As I said somewhere else, Apple might do a widescreen iPod, but not a touchscreen for 2 or 3 years possibly. Making it widescreen would make it nice enough. The iPod built Apple to what it is now, they screw that up and they could be finished.
To be fair, Apple has never been afraid to take things in new directions before, and even the addition of video playback capabilities was something that many thought they would never do.

Also keep in mind that the iPod nano is selling very welll. So well in fact that many analysts think that Microsoft went after the wrong market with the Zune... That they should have released a smaller-capacity flash-based device, instead of an HD-based device. The iPod nano is as much a part of the iPod ecosystem as the full-size iPod is, and there's no reason for Apple to worry too much about keeping the full-size device as-is.

For Apple to diversify the lineup into a device that is far more revolutionary and advanced is what they need to do right now to stay progressive. The writing is on the wall in that regard, and an iPod that simply provides a larger screen and larger battery but retains the same interface design is not going to be the sort of device that most people are waiting for.

When Apple released the "enhanced" 5.5G in the fall, that was enough to make many people bored of waiting for the next big thing, and consider a different brand of player. Now, after two years since a major upgrade, Apple needs to do something revolutionary in order to survive.

That's like: ooh I just spent $500 on a phone with a contract with Cingular and its touchscreen and has a widescreen iPod. What's that? They just released an iPod for $400 with the same features and I can buy a phone thats unlocked for $40! Dammit!
Well, they just did exactly that with the Apple TV.... A number of people bought a 40GB Apple TV within the past two months, and now there's a 160GB version available for only $100 more.

This is classic to Apple's whole pricing structure and marketing strategy... They don't discount current models or even hint that something new may be coming out, and while the Apple TV timeframe was odd even for Apple, they did the same thing with the 5G iPod last fall... A whole lot of people bought a 60GB 5G iPod on September 11th, and then were quite disappointed when Apple released an 80GB 5G iPod on September 12th for the same price.

There are two basic categories of people who are going to buy an iPhone when it hits the streets.... The early adopters who just have to have it now because it's such a cool new iPod, and the people who actually want it because it's a phone.

The people in the first category are a relatively small minority of the millions that Apple is actually marketing to, and if they were paying any attention at all, they would be waiting to see what happens in the fall anyway.

The people in the second category would look at the 6G iPod when it comes out, note that it's not actually a phone or an internet communications device, and wouldn't lose too much sleep over it, because they bought the device they wanted.

Apple's not going to avoid advancing their technology just because they're afraid of alienating a very small minority of their consumer base (who quite frankly would have bought the device because they're rabid fanboys anyway). I would think they'd be more concerned about upsetting the larger set of their consumer base who is eagerly waiting for the 6G iPod to do something revolutionary, and are going to be very disappointed if Apple releases anything less than that.
 
Last edited:

Code Monkey

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
5,201
Points
0
Location
Midstate New York
jhollington said:
The people in the first category are a huge minority of the millions that Apple is actually marketing to, and if they were paying any attention at all, they would be waiting to see what happens in the fall anyway.
What, exactly, is a "huge minority"? :D

I've heard of the insiginificant minority, the vocal minority, and the insignificant yet vocal minority, but the HUGE minority is a new one on me ;)


Apple's not going to avoid advancing their technology just because they're afraid of alienating a very small minority of their consumer base (who quite frankly would have bought the device because their rabid fanboys anyway).
More QFT.


I would think they'd be more concerned about upsetting the larger set of their consumer base who is eagerly waiting for the 6G iPod to do something revolutionary, and are going to be very disappointed if Apple releases anything less than that.
Exactly. We've arrived at a similar market as when the 5G came out. Apple had stretched the 4G for 18 months with updates to capacity, pricing, pack-ins, and, finally, a color screen, and a lot of people were still underwhelmed with nothing new but video while simultaneously improving the form factor and battery life plus the obligatory storage bump. And that was Oct 2005.

It's now another 18 months later and they've pushed thinness down about as far as you're going to go without different screen and storage technology. Plus, sizewise, nobody else has really come close with large capacity players. There's very little more they could do here, and it's debatable that anybody is going to care - if you MUST have something thinner than the 5.X iPod, you already bought a nano or shuffle.

They've pushed battery life to the point of diminishing returns in terms of appeasing the customer base. It's been since 2005 since the iPod's "crappy battery life" was a common bash seen in online forums nigh daily. The only place I see it mentioned regularly is when people pimp the video playback battery life of the Zen versus the iPod, and that's a rather niche comparison.

Audio quality could be tweaked further with better DAC output, but that is also a niche audience appeal (and that niche can already buy line out adapters).

So what, if not a genuine interface upgrade, do people think they're going to do to get people's attention? Five years into the product's life with a very refined design, it can't be said that there's anything about the 5G that's actively keeping your average user away, so it's more about triggering another wave of upgrades and enticing a new set of customers to buy the iPod where they wouldn't have beforehand, and that takes something with pizzaz. The 4G brought us the clickwheel, color, and full USB compatibility. The 5G added video and better battery life while improving the form factor but otherwise failed to "wow".

The 6G needs to do something with at least as much of a paradigm shift to the iPod's foci as video, because while virtually nobody would buy an iPhone just for the iPod features, you can bet Apple's stock that a lot of somebodys won't buy the 6G iPod if it's not at least as cool and compelling of a multimedia device as the iPhone. Although some keep harkening back to the claim that Apple would be risking the iPhone by making an iPod that is based on the same UI, they've got it backwards: I think it's more like Apple would be risking the iPod by so clearly showing they were holding back to try and drum up more (expensive) iPhone sales and "abandoning" the user base that revitalised the company like nothing since the first Mac.
 
Top