Fall iPod fashions
In contrast to the horned one, Mr. Gruber has come down in favor of the rumors of OS X-ey (pronounced "OS sexy") iPod coming this fall and poo-poos concerns over cannibalizing iPhone sales.
The reason some people are skeptical about Apple introducing OS X-based iPods this year is that the question about cannibalizing sales works both ways: an iPhone-ish OS X-based iPod would surely have some detrimental effect on iPhone sales. AT&T might care about that, but why would Apple?
Because they report the sales figures separately.
As a new product line, the iPhone's sales matter (see below). When Apple reports iPod sales, it reports them all together, so in Gruber's example of the nano replacing the mini, the effect from the perspective of reporting sales was simply to cause the aggregate number to go up.
If Apple shows gigantic iPhone sales that drop off dramatically, expect howls of "I told you so!" from the usual collection of clowns, but also some serious questions from serious analysts wondering if that toe Apple's dipping in the cell phone market is finding the water a little cold.
Still, Gruber may be right. Last year's iPod announcements were solid but not earth-shattering and any iPod announcements this fall that don't include the OS X/Multitouch interface are going to be met with disappointment.
The biggest question, as I see it, is whether Apple plans to introduce iPods that are more or less just the iPod app from the iPhone (i.e. just music and video players), or iPods that are everything but phones, with Wi-Fi networking for email, web, and more.
If any iPhone-inspired iPods hit the streets this fall, the Macalope's money is on the "just the iPod" option.
Mythical beast and rumormonger extraordinaire, the Macalope writes about all things Apple for the CNET Blog Network. Read more at The Macalope: An Apple blog. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
certainly be differentiated both by functionality as well as price. Whether
Apple will do it all at once or incrementally will probably be determined by
their ability to meet demand. All the chatter out there by the pundit class
reminds me of James Thurber; ?Are you lifting the oxcart out of the ditch? Are
you tearing up the pea patch? Are you hollering down the rain barrel? Are you
scraping around the bottom of the pickle barrel? Are you sitting in the catbird
seat??
Apple is sitting in the catbird seat.
iPod NOT having an "iPhone-like" interface:
http://thesmallwave.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-6g-ipod-will-share-
iphone-interface.html
Needless to say, I'd be very surprised it it's not more or less identical to the
iPod function of the iPhone. I believe my article points out why doing
anything else wouldn't really make any sense.
As for it being OS X-based, that was kind of an understood assumption on
my part. From a user perspective it wouldn't matter, so long as it was the
"iPhone iPod," but why should Apple port the interface to the iPod's OS
instead of just bringing the "portable" OS X over?
Your move, Groobie.
I place my bet on OS X iPods at Macworld 2008 - alongside iPhone 2.0! Oh yes! That's right!
That's probably not right.
dismissive contempt, it does so without active offense.
Of course, the Macalope roams free on the high plains, and may poo where he
pleases. But Gruber probably doesn't, or Amy would be irked - and John seems
to be too much of a gent for that.
decided at the age of 900 plus years to become a pundit, I think I am well
qualified since I have never seen or touched a iPhone but I do have a video
iPod which I just luv.
Now like all good Pundits in the land of the iPhone (formerly the US of A) I
shall spout all kinds of (mis) information about things I know absolutely
nothing about.
Apple's filing of a patent re: the nano iPhone could be just covering all the
bases against the competition, not an intent to produce one in the near
future.
I would expect the next generation of iPod to have the touch screen and
larger screen as per the iPhone but I believe in my vast wisdom that it will still
be a device that only plays tunes, movies and games as now leaving the
internet access to the iPhone. Larger storage will most likely be part of the
upgrade.
Now unlike most Pundits I must say that most of this could be absolute Bird
Crap which is what my colleges produce on a regular basis (there is nothing
better than morning regularity to clean out the mind).
So that's my morning movement, say do Pundits get paid for this?
To wit: It doesn't matter. The iPod and the iPhone are different tools for different jobs. The iPhone is a massively enabled phone. The iPod is a pure entertainment device.
Speaking just for myself, I'd love it if Apple introduced a phone/mail/web device separately from a video/music device. I don't want all that in one package. In fact, to me, video is useless in a portable device.
My individual opinion doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but an iPod that conveniently carries my music library and lets me listen to it in the car and office is doing all it needs to do. All that other stuff is "gee-whiz" but not useful to me.
If Apple was courting me specifically, they'd introduce a cheaper iPhone that is an ass-kicking communicator and isn't an iPod. I can't be the only one.
the same reasons: phone makers and service providers are just looking for an
excuse to crow over the iPhone's apparent death, and a dip in sales because
of a new iPod would give them the opportunity. But after reading Gruber's
take on it, I think I'm with him, now.
Apple has no reason to care about the iPhone in preference to the iPod. Just
because the phone market is huge doesn't mean they're all willing to buy an
iPhone, and so it's anyone's guess whether the potential iPhone market is
bigger than the potential iPod market, and the best way to find out is to put
the best examples of both out there and see which sells. If people declare the
iPhone dead as a result, then so be it: they've been doing that for months
already, and it doesn't seem to have dissuaded people from buying iPhones.
Meanwhile, Apple will be raking in cash from sales of both iPods and iPhones.
Also interesting is Eran's new piece on the iPod (http://
www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/
RDM.Tech.Q3.07/DD5FFFA5-2CDA-46C7-ADE9-
E4AD4BF01602.html). I'm not certain he's right about this going all the way
back to 2001, because my old FireWire brick doesn't have all the files he
mentions, but whether it be finding or speculation, I still found it fascinating.
- Both are correct
- by MonkeyTrainer July 15, 2007 5:56 AM PDT
- I think the touch interface will supplant the click wheel, but not soon. Gruber
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(11 Comments)describes how the evolution was planned, the Macalope describes how it will
actually play out. I think that the success of the iPhone launch (and pre-
launch build up) will cause Apple to stretch its transition plan out over a year
or more. Ultimately we'll see the Nano become the click wheel device, the
video iPod become the touch-screen, wifi iPod (no phone capabilities), and
the iPhone 2 become even more like the Newton - about the same time as the
wifi iPod is introduced (Next summer. I think there will be an iPhone 1.5
released before Christmas). But there will be one more generation of video
iPod first, keeping a clear delineation between the iPod and the iPhone for
another year.