I think as long as it remains profitable, they should keep it. The R&D costs are already well recouped so it's basically little more than a profit center. I understand Apple doesn't exactly need the money, but I think it would be a bad idea to kill off a licence to print money like the iPod.
Apple likes to keep a limited product lineup, so if a model isn't particularly necessary they can replace it with another product (such as an Apple TV variant), as well as consuming display space in stores.
I bought iPod Touches for my 2 oldest kids and my wife last Christmas. So, this year, instead of buying $30-$40 games, they have been able to buy several $2 games throughout each month.
It's been a blast, the savings are starting to really show, and they even like the games better.
Yeah, I really wish people would start making some meatier games for the iPhone to go with all the 5 minute junk food distractions that are about as entertaining as bouncing a ball. There have been a few games of more substance, but for the most part, it doesn't hold a candle to the DS' library.
As a developer I view the rise of the $1-$2 price point with some concern. There's not much room between Angry Birds and the massive piles of junkware to make a living as an indie there.
This isn't true with big publishers - Square Enix's $10-14 games are consistently in the "Top Grossing" list. For smaller devs who can't market well, you're right.
Yeah, it probably requires a brand or a recommendation from someone to get over the price anchoring. Are there any very reputable review sites a la Gamespot/PC Magazine/etc. that focus on writing high quality reviews of apps?
They do aggregate scoring and have established themselves as the main way to rate "greatness" on PC and consoles, going as far as landing game directors a bonus if their creation gets a score above 85. They're quite valuable for iOS as well. "King of Dragon Pass" gets a 90 at MC.
Most critics review games based on what they are. So a simple jump&run game might rate highly if it's a truly original+fantastic one. I would suggest you go through the list - anything above 80% is a game absolutely worth your while - then see if the genre and complexity fits you.
Please please please make a waterproof one. The only reason I use my ipod over my phone for music is because I do not like to sweat all over my phone when I work out. Also for running in the rain (maybe for battery life on a long plane ride). If they made a waterproof ipod nano that would solve all my problems. Also if they for that direction just make headphones and a case that I can use to swim with. There is h2oaudio.com (which is awesome) but I would rather it just come straight from apple.
It will become like the Mac business. Routine updates with nothing to announce unless it's special; unibody fabrication or designs like the Air.
That is until they reset their business.
The iPod product will be rebranded and remain iOS device that does everything but have a phone. iPod rebranded with iPhone form and function, except no phone functionality.
A Mac line, iPad line and a handset line. Face it, calling is now a feature on a computer. It's not a phone with features.
The only graph that matters there is the first one, and no one should be surprised that units have dropped. They should be surprised that they've dropped so little since the iPhone does everything the iPod does and more.
% of revenue presented like that is misleading. The iPhone and the iPad are selling like hot cakes and making a ton of money, but they're not iPods.
Revenue growth at around -6% may look bad, but that just means they're making 1.48 billion minus 6%. If you don't think that's a lot of money, you're mad.
iDevice revenue breakdown.... what's the point of that graph?
Here's what Apple should do with the iPod. Keep innovating. $1.48 Billion is a lot of money. It's a business in it's own right.
Obviously they don't have to do anything with it, it's still profitable and has high margins. There's obviously some potential to grow though.
The touch is basically a prepaid phone with no phone chip. They could add that phone chip and absorb the margin hit through scale in China, etc. Bound to happen sooner or later.
The nano is a redesign away from assaulting the global watch market (over $40 bln this year).
The shuffle, I could seem them innovating the form factor, why not abstract it right into the earbuds.
The classic is dead, growth wise so they can keep selling it but don't think it'd shock anyone if they shut it down tomorrow.
I think the classic will die when you can fit 256GB into an iPod Touch, either through flash memory or a thicker hard drive version. Otherwise the iPod Classic still sells to those that _HAVE_ to have 200+ GB of music with them at all times.
Yeah well there was still a market for x-serves but it wasn't big enough so eventually they killed it.
The only way I can see them getting growth out of the classic would be to put the massive memory to work hauling HD video around instead of music. That does suggest an interesting iOS device maybe aimed at high end camcorders if they can find a tiny 1 TB drive in the pipe somewhere.
They're probably selling 20-30 times as many iPod Classics/year as they ever did xserves, even at their peak. The xserve also didn't do anything to act as a draw toward other Apple products, and required frequent revisions to keep up. I bet ongoing iPod Classic R&D budget is statistical noise.
I'm not making a close analogy and I'm not saying they should shut it down.
I'm just saying Apple will know when the classic isn't worth the time/energy/shelf space and I wouldn't be shocked if they announced this is the case in weeks rather then years.
And I guess I'm making a wild guess as to how they might keep an HDD based idevice relevant although I don't think that's particularly likely either.
The Classic is $249. The 64GB Touch is $399. Even if the next revision got 128GB at $399, that's a major price difference. A lot of people who would pay for the 160GB Classic are not going to pay for a 128GB $399 Touch.
Another route they could take with the ipod touch/phone idea, is make faceTime and its underlying software a first-class VOIP phone network with clients on multiple platforms and sell the ipod as a wifi phone without a subscription fee. I'm not sure how easy this would be given their agreements with cell providers, but it would be an interesting move.
For what it's worth, I have a relatively large music collection (100gb+) and used an 80gb iPod for two years before getting a 32gb iPhone. The difference in usability was /huge/, to the point where I didn't miss the 50gb of space. If I didn't have a smartphone and had the option of a 128gb iPod Touch, it would be a no-brainer for me.
Personally, I don't think anything would be lost by discontinuing the iPod Classic, as long as something with a sizeable capacity replaced it.
Apple would be nuts to get rid of the shuffle. Keeping the iTunes ecosystem strong is really important, as the kid with a shuffle today is best served by an iPhone in the future.
Keep it around. Its a hook to get people to use the mac ecosystem. That's the product that started the resurrection of mac. I'm sure Apple will keep it around and keep on making minor changes to it overtime.
With the iCloud service ramping up, I suspect that the iPod classic may get PC-less syncing at some point. But then it would have to include some sort of wireless option as well.
I'd be surprised if they spent the engineering dollars on writing the non-iOS code to do that and integrating wireless equipment into what I think is the lowest-selling model of iPod, a product whose sales are rapidly being replaced by iOS-based iPods and iPhones.
If they thought about this ahead of time, perhaps developing for both platforms is similar enough they could add the feature to both the iPhone/iTouch and the iPod Classic at the same time?
200M iPod users are nothing to sneeze at: they represent an enormous pool of potential iPhone and iPad users, and Apple has been using the iPod Touch as a "gateway drug" for iOS for years now.
The Retina display 16G iPod touch has to be the lowest margin product in Apple's lineup, due to its place as a low cost stepping stone to the more expensive iOS devices.
It would be cool if they made the Nano a wrist mounted remote display for the iPhone, though.
Apple has always been one to do what THEY think is best, and then make everybody follow along. They did it with iOS and flash, basically saying "hey we don't like this, you shouldn't either, so we aren't going to let you use it." for better or for worse, this has always been Apple's Modus Operandi, and whether or not you believe in it, judging by their stock prices, it's worked.
One of the biggest killers of the iPod is the fact that the iPhone is no longer exclusive to AT&T. How many millions of people bought an iPod because they had Verizon and didn't feel like dealing with AT&T? This is only going to get worse with the iPhone 5, which will presumably be on all major carriers.
I think the emergence of Android has made all altogether killing the iPod unrealistic. I have yet to see an Android phone that handles music as well as the iPod does, and Apple knows this. I think what is going to happen is that Apple will revamp the line again in a year or so, and do something to make it relevant. I would say the iPod touch, ironically enough, is the one in the most danger of being killed off, what with it's big brother iPad owning the tablet market and the iPhone doing everything that it does and more.
I still see a lot of nanos at the gym, but there are also a lot of people just using their iPhones / Droids. (And for actual street running, the nano is a bit better being smaller and lighter and not $600 to replace when you drop it.)
For street running I personally prefer my phone to a small dedicated music player. Having a phone means having access to all of my music via Google Music plus gps with apps to track my speed/distance progress.
I actually hadn't thought of the rumored new iPhone 5 design as a possibility of it being the next iPod Touch. Maybe that's why we haven't heard any iPod Touch rumors yet?
I think they should bring back the "old" Nano. A lot of people haven't bought the new one as they still like tactile controls and want a screen large enough to watch a video. They also don't want an iPhone or to pay for the touch. They shot themselves there.
There has been a lot of innovation with the iPod but some of it hasn't always been that great. Consider the "stick" shaped shuffle which reverted back to the old design in the latest revision. I consider the touch-based iPod Nano to be the same sort of unnecessary crock.
