backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by kmmatney.. on Oct 4 at 12:54 PM


  (Source: skattertech.com)
Classic's platter-based hard drive and Shuffle's lack of a screen are just two possible reasons for discontinuing the products

Apple's iPod has been around just over a decade now, with the current lineup consisting of the iPod Shuffle, iPod nano, iPod Classic and iPod touch. But according to TUAW, two of the aforementioned portable media players are getting the old heave-ho this year. 

If you've been thinking about picking up an iPod Nano or iPod Classic anytime soon, the time is now -- both media players are seeing their last days as sale items at Apple. 

According to TUAW, there are plenty of reasons for Apple to make this move. For starters, Apple announced earlier this year that 
iPod sales were falling short of expectations. The iPod Classic hasn't changed much over the years and doesn't offer anything that the iPod touch doesn't offer. Also, it uses a platter-based hard drive, and Apple is mainly switching to flash-based memory. 

As for the iPod Shuffle, its lack of a screen has been an issue since day one. 

With the Classic and the Shuffle out of the picture, Apple will only have touchscreen iPods available with the 
iPod nano becoming its new low-end media player. 

Apple has not confirmed this discontinuation, but TUAW received the word from an anonymous source.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Oh really?
By MrTeal on 9/28/2011 12:23:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
According to TUAW, there are plenty of reasons for Apple to make this move. For starters, Apple announced earlier this year that iPod sales were falling short of expectations. The iPod Classic hasn't changed much over the years and doesn't offer anything that the iPod touch doesn't offer. Also, it uses a platter-based hard drive, and Apple is mainly switching to flash-based memory.


My 160GB Classic has 2.5x the storage and costs 63% as much as a 64GB Touch. I have an Android phone if I want to install Angry Birds or Shazam. I like the ergonomics of the iPod, but I'd switch to another brand before spending $160 more on the biggest capacity Touch model.




RE: Oh really?
By quiksilvr on 9/28/2011 12:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
I actually would like to see a HDD version of the iPod Touch. Archos does it, why can't Apple?


RE: Oh really?
By AMDftw on 9/28/2011 12:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
Because it would make Apple seem like they have some type of common scene


RE: Oh really?
By mellomonk on 9/28/2011 12:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
Because 99.9 of the manufactures out there are getting as far away from spinning disks, and their inevitable failure, as they can. All the new gadgets are all nand flash. The huge capacity is the only thing that has kept the Classic in the lineup, but with cloud services storing all or most of your library on the horizon, the handwriting was on the wall.

Archos is still in business? How retro. (I kid :)


RE: Oh really?
By hankw on 9/28/2011 1:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
Flash memory is prone to failure over time as well (limited write cycles). The advantages of flash that I see are smaller physical size, lower power consumption, and faster read speeds.
I can't see cloud storage being a complete replacement for lard sizes either since no everyone (like me) is connected at all times, nor is it always convenient to download large files when you need them.


RE: Oh really?
By Taft12 on 9/30/2011 2:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
"Limited write cycles" perfectly describes an iPod's use pattern. Apple is in the business of minimizing repairs and returns. Rotational drives don't have the durability of flash. There are many reasons to move away from spinning drives, in fact capacity is the only argument in favour.


RE: Oh really?
By xenol on 9/28/2011 2:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
Cloud storage only works if you have internet... which the iPod Touch can only get in spotty places. Not to mention that most cellular provides cap you at 2GB-3GB per month for the basic plan (which at the minimal acceptable MP3, you're at 34 hours of music).

But actually, NAND flash for a PMP device that you rarely update is better than HDDs, because you won't be writing so much to the memory, and hence, making the write limit pretty moot. i.e., the HDD is probably going to die first than the flash hitting it's life time.


RE: Oh really?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2011 2:43:36 PM , Rating: 1
Nobody is going to use the same MP3 player for 10+ years anyway, hell probably not even 5. So arguing HDD vs. Flash reliability in this case is pointless in my opinion. MP3 players spend the vast majority of the time not even powered on. I can show you hard drives that ran 24/7 for over 10 years under heavy server loads.


RE: Oh really?
By seamonkey79 on 9/28/2011 8:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
My Zune 30 is still going strong.


RE: Oh really?
By Omega215D on 9/29/2011 1:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
Still using my 4+ year old Cowon D2 and it's still running strong. It has sound quality that many devices, especially apple stuff, can't match. The battery life is rated for 52 hours and I'm still getting 35 hours after all these years.

I carry 2 devices because I don't want to drain my battery on my phone by listening to tunes and the sound quality stated before.


RE: Oh really?
By michael2k on 9/29/2011 6:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still using my 2006 iPod as a video playing device.


RE: Oh really?
By Taft12 on 9/30/2011 2:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations on flushing out the only 3 users on earth who use a 5+ year old MP3 player -- well done!


RE: Oh really?
By TakinYourPoints on 9/29/2011 7:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
Because it would be a really bad idea. Increased bulk, moving parts, reduced battery life, all negatives. My desktop PC has had an SSD for the main drive for two years now, and physical platters are a downgrade IMHO. I expect bad decisions from companies like Archos, but really, why anyone would think a physical hard drive in a portable device like this is a good idea is beyond me.


RE: Oh really?
By Subzero0000 on 9/29/2011 9:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I actually would like to see a HDD version of the iPod Touch. Archos does it, why can't Apple?


Oh really? Good luck, running with a HDD.


RE: Oh really?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2011 2:34:55 PM , Rating: 3
Trying to operate something with a touch wheel is retarded.

Allow me to illustrate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA


RE: Oh really?
By Sunrise089 on 9/28/2011 2:58:44 PM , Rating: 1
Agree. I use a 16gig iPhone because I'm cheap and because my work and school life means I need email, internet, camera, etc with me. If I just needed a music player though (something I could envision for people in different circumstances) the iPod classic seems like a much better option.


RE: Oh really?
By kmmatney on 10/4/2011 12:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
With flash being so cheap these days, I don't know why they can't make a reasonably low cost 128GB flash-based player.

Sandisk charges $160+ for a 16GB MP3 player, while a 16GB Sandisk memory chip is $15. I don't get it...let alone the difference in price Apple charges for higher capacity devices.


It's A Start
By lightfoot on 9/28/2011 12:27:21 PM , Rating: 4
Now if Apple would just discontinue the iPod Nano, iPod Touch, iPad, and iTunes we wouldn't have to deal with their monopolistic anticompetitive behaviors anymore.




RE: It's A Start
By quiksilvr on 9/28/2011 1:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL!

Sensible route I hope they take:

8GB Nano: $99
16GB Nano: $149

16GB Touch: $199
32GB Touch: $249
64GB Touch: $299

What's going to happen:
Same asinine prices we see on the site.


RE: It's A Start
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2011 2:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to deal with them now. Zunepass kicks the ass of that whore iTunes. As far as the Zune itself, it stacks up to anything Apple can throw at it. Don't believe the faux superiority of Apple, only their marketing is better.


RE: It's A Start
By sprockkets on 9/28/2011 3:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well since Steve Jobs is gone from apple there will be no more next big things. Consider our wish come true.

Soon apple will be back to where they were in 1996.


RE: It's A Start
By web2dot0 on 9/28/2011 3:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to like to see Apple fail. I find it kinda odd since we need competition.
You want apple to continue to push the envelope so its competitors will work twice as hard to keep up.

We need one dominate player with the rest of the field being legitimate challengers. That's where the most innovations come. Remember the Golden Era of the US back in the 50-70s?

With no clear dominate player, there'll be market fragmentation and non-standardize technologies, which is also bad for consumers.

We want a system where everybody wins at the end. That's how capitalism works.


RE: It's A Start
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2011 3:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is true to sue their competition off the planet. Hello?


RE: It's A Start
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2011 3:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
edit true=TRYING. argh


RE: It's A Start
By TakinYourPoints on 9/28/2011 4:23:25 PM , Rating: 1
On the other hand, who else would their competition copy if they didn't exist?


RE: It's A Start
By V-Money on 9/29/2011 12:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
True, imagine if apple didn't pave the way for tablets by creating the rectangular minimalistic design. I will give Steve props for the iPod though, he was the first to say "lets make a device that plays music that is actually easy to use and works well for what its designed for"...of course then he ruined it with iTunes and that stupid wheel (I hate that wheel). Without it though, the Zune's (all types) that I have owned and loved over the years would probably never have been made. With jobs gone though, I am curious to see how fast Apple will fail.


RE: It's A Start
By Pirks on 9/29/2011 12:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the other hand, who else would their competition copy if they didn't exist?
Yeah, indeed, Asus copied Apple when they introduced their first netbook, EEE PC. Right?

Or maybe you should stop smoking crack?


Unmentioned benefits of the Classic
By bysmitty on 9/28/2011 12:50:58 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The iPod Classic hasn't changed much over the years and doesn't offer anything that the iPod touch doesn't offer .

Except for a capacity of 160gb, almost 100gb more than the biggest Touch. For those of us that have large music collections, that is a big deal.

The Classic also offers actual buttons. These can be pressed by feel in your pocket or without taking your eyes from the road. Screen only interface require more of your attention to navigate.




RE: Unmentioned benefits of the Classic
By TakinYourPoints on 9/28/2011 4:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that the market has spoken, and the demand for stand alone media players has declined as people want devices that do more than just that.

I agree that an option with buttons would be preferable. The iPod Touch is good but taking away buttons from the nano was a huge mistake, they're just awful now IMHO.


RE: Unmentioned benefits of the Classic
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2011 5:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
Or the market is saying they have better stuff to spend money on in this interminable recession. Whichever interpretation works for you.


RE: Unmentioned benefits of the Classic
By TakinYourPoints on 9/28/2011 5:30:41 PM , Rating: 1
Right, which is why the iPad which starts at $500 is making selling more than the iPod ever did and has every other company trying to carve a piece of this new market, and which is why people do the same thing they did with an iPod (look at all the responses here) but with a more expensive smartphone instead. Dedicated PMPs are dying and are being actually replaced by more expensive but more capable devices.

You should start basing your arguments on reality instead of personal bias and emotion.


RE: Unmentioned benefits of the Classic
By lightfoot on 9/28/2011 5:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
$500 for a tablet actually sounds reasonable next to a $250 MP3 player.

It doesn't mean that both products aren't severely overpriced.


By TakinYourPoints on 9/29/2011 7:27:49 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand how a $500 tablet suddenly became "overpriced". People couldn't believe it when the iPad was announced at $500, everyone was expecting a tablet to be $1000 based on the price of them up until that point. Then there's the fact that other 10" tablets cost roughly the same amount or more, just look at the Xoom which launched at $800 with much lower specs, and they still won't compete on internal specs until the Tegra 3 launches.

I won't argue that a $250 mp3 player with hard drive platters is a concept that is ready to die though. Some people here seem to like all the storage space they offer, but I don't care for the seek times on physical platters compared to what you get with flash memory. Downgrading to a 16GB flash based mp3 player which also costs less makes sense to me given that you're losing moving parts, gaining battery life, and improving seek time performance. How much music does one need to carry?

But again, I think dedicated PMPs are on life support, but that's just me. A couple years and most people won't have dedicated music players, they'll also be phones or things like iPod Touches.


RE: Unmentioned benefits of the Classic
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2011 6:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is recession proof. People literally have sold their goddamn organs to buy an iPad dude.

quote:
You should start basing your arguments on reality instead of personal bias and emotion.


And you'll start doing that when exactly? You just aren't thinking clearly.


RE: Unmentioned benefits of the Classic
By TakinYourPoints on 9/28/2011 8:19:59 PM , Rating: 1
I'm thinking very clearly and basing arguments on reality. People want devices that do more than simple media playback even if they have to pay more, it is very simple.

Basing your argument on an extreme outlier case where one Chinese teenager out of tens of millions of customers sold a kidney for an iPad (which is completely insane btw) doesn't make for a rational argument, it just makes you look like you're desperately grasping for straws.


RE: Unmentioned benefits of the Classic
By Pirks on 9/29/2011 12:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget you're talking to the lunatic who just said that MS is bigger than Apple. This guy is too delusional to understand what you're talking about.


By Taft12 on 9/30/2011 2:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm never one to defend MS but there are measures of a company's size other than market capitalization...


Nano
By L1011 on 9/28/2011 2:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
Bring back the previous generation Nano!! The current Nano is AWFUL. I don't like the touchscreen when I use my Nano in the car. I have a Nano from two generations ago and it's far superior to the current model. I can change songs in the car without taking my eyes off the road and it's just the right size. The new Nano is terrible and I'll never buy it.




RE: Nano
By kmmatney on 10/4/2011 12:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - the old nano was bigger, so they could also fit in more memory chips. it could be the new "high capacity" player. Flash is cheap these days - I see no reason why you couldn't make a reasonably low-cost 64GB/128MB flash-based player.


The Standalone Music Player Is Dead
By Arsynic on 9/28/11, Rating: 0
By ClownPuncher on 9/28/2011 2:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
Though, none of them can play music with "acceptable" audio quality.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki