They’re here and they’re pretty queer: The new iPod line up
Don’t get me wrong, the new iPod’s are great. You have the new iPod touch, which has a beautiful 3.5″ multi-touch screen just like the one features in the iPhone and then you also have the iPod classic which goes up to a whopping 160Gb and with a price drop too.
Image copyright www.apple.com
But c’mon Apple get your head out of your ass, no one wants to chose between different iPod’s. The iPod Nano is still great, it’s small, has enough memory to serve those with small to medium sized music libraries, and now even has the ability to playback video too. That’s good and all but lets take a look at the new iPod’s (classic and touch).
We start of with the all amazing, most anticipated iPod touch. It looks great, has a great screen, inbuilt wireless, everything just 8mm thick but only comes with 8 or 16Gb of storage. Now for most yes that might be fine, for others that might not be enough and for a whole heap of people it would seem too expensive considering the 80Gb iPod classic is just $349 AUD when compared to the 8Gb iPod touch model for $419 AUD.
Yes you are getting the touch screen, yes you are getting the Wi-Fi and yes you are getting a better looking product, but is it worth sacrificing 72Gb of storage space and paying another $70 AUD for the iPod touch? In my opinion no. I have the last generation 80Gb iPod video, and for me there really isn’t anything I could upgrade too.
I mean I could buy the new iPod classic, but then what’s the point in buying another 80Gb iPod? Or if I go for the 160Gb I’m paying for the space, which a) I don’t need and b) the iPod itself is exactly the same with a little difference in the actual user interface (no biggie).
While on the subject of the new iPod classic, what is actually new about it? apart from the 160Gb version, which I have to admit is fantastic, why would you get one when there’s the iPod touch? They performed a small makeover on the new iPod classic, beefed up the hard drive, made it thinner and at the same time cheaper, but have virtually killed it by releasing the iPod touch alongside it.
What Apple has done is split up everything the consumers wanted in an iPod product into two different iPod’s. The consumers wanted a touch screen iPod with the storage space of the older generation iPod video. Instead of providing the consumers with one product that can do all that and more, they have released two very different iPod’s making the choice between them virtually impossible.
If you were to buy one of the new iPod’s which one would you go for?
Thanks,
Marat
I think what Apple has done is actually quite clever. Think about it: the iPod classic is designed for people who want their iPod to be a portable media player that can store a massive pile of media; the iPod touch is for those who want something pretty and with a bundle of additional functionality and, of course, those who want something they can confuse with their iPhone when getting ready for work in the morning. The market for a device that combines both attributes is vanishingly small: something like the touch with the storage capacity of a classic would have been given a price beyond what many consumers would be prepared to pay. This way, Apple gets substantial numbers of people in each of the two markets of which I wrote, sacrificing just the few who would pay a lot for a device combining the attributes of the classic and the touch.
Which would I buy? The classic. Realistically, how much will you use the wireless on the touch? And touch screens are fine and dandy, but not when you’re paying that much more for that much less capacity in return.
Nick Kashin
September 6, 2007 at 23:12