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

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!


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














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