Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
A Lark Ascending

Death of the iPod (Everyone's buying vinyl)

482 posts in this topic

I don't think anyone can quarrel with paying in whatever the way the vendor requires for something you don't have.

The point about the iPod Classic/Cloud thing is that once you have purchased the iPod you no longer pay to hear the music you have already bought. If it is on a cloud then you pay to access it indefinitely.

So the cloud (as run presently) is not just another technological advance. In the process of moving on we have lost something that an admittedly small number of us rather value.

Maybe cloud costs over time will prove cheaper than the substantial outlay for an iPod Classic.

I'd relish being able to carry everything on one device. I'm still not convinced I'd get uninterrupted music - unless clouds download the album temporarily in full when accessed so interruptions in service have no effect. In Britain we still have lots of dead areas and places where signals come and go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re. storage - that costs you money ANYWAY - the hardware is also not free and is much more likely to fail than the cloud - in fact it inevitably DOES fail. Cloud storage isn't obligatory - and there are of course other options than Apple - but storage is never free....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by recurring costs? ICloud is free.

The best things in life are few.

https://www.apple.com/icloud/

And I'm not just referring to iCloud. Spotify and other subscriptions require recurring monthly payment, along with constant data transfer courtesy of megaton telecom.

But yay for progress. Spotify is also free if you don't mind the commercial breaks and lower streaming bitrate.

At the end of the day if you want something better than the free service offered, then you have to pay. I'm not sure why that is so outrageous.

This requires a data plan with your telecom provider.

Is the free version available for mobile devices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon, brother.

You're going down a rather silly road here.

Yeah, if you didn't use Cloud storage or stream via Spotify, you'd have neither internet or a data plan.

Seriously?

You're manufacturing outrage.

Edited by Scott Dolan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 6G 160gig IPod Classic that I love very much, especially when I travel, and it's been having some problems that led me to think that I may need to replace it soon. Then 2 days after the recent Apple announcements, I found out that iPod Classic was discontinued. I panicked and scoured the web and local stores. Most places said they no longer have any, but a kindly manager of a local Radio Shack found one 7G 160gig at a distant store and requested that it be sent to her store. Meanwhile, I ordered another one on the Best Buy website. (Apparently, some guy had been driving around the SF area and buying up all available 160 gig iPod Classics, presumably to sell on eBay or such.) I thought at best, I would get one of two in, and in fact received a message from Best Buy shortly after my order saying that they no longer have it. But both arrived in the last 2 days. Now, I have a big dilemma. Do I return one of them? (I hadn't realized that the 7G is so much thinner than the 6G.)

Let me know if you want to part with one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no outrage. I'm trying to help you understand why the people here who have expressed an interest in owning and carrying multiple classic iPods, as opposed to an iphone with iCloud and spotify accounts, prefer their methods.

Some folks do not want to own a cell phone. Others own a cell phone, but do not want a data plan. Then there are those who just want to do things their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already understood when MG explained it earlier.

But, the fact that the people you describe are such a niche market explains the exact reason Apple discontinued it.

Edited by Scott Dolan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recurring charges. Constant revenue. Two of the reasons that I believe motivate decisions to discontinue products that don't require IP addresses.

Doesn't really matter what I think, but I can understand why people are uncomfortable with the shape of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A requiem from wired, never owned one amd can't really connect with all the sadness, but the text is pretty good...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer NOT having my music on my phone, which is one reason I have an MP3 player (iPod or otherwise). I may have mentioned this earlier, but I don't want to run down my phone's battery or fill up its memory in order to listen to music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already understood when MG explained it earlier.

But, the fact that the people you describe are such a niche market explains the exact reason Apple discontinued it.

I have to agree with Impossible on this one. Apple doesn't follow trends or even customer needs in the traditional sense, they lead. They decide what the customer needs, and the customer says: "Cool- I need that". They don't react, they dictate. They clearly plan things in advance, including the idea of discontinuing products and software along with a new replacement strategies and updated versions. Just like the trend with some Adobe software, where you have to lease it instead of owning it, Apple is looking for the recurring charges/constant revenue. Obviously, there are a majority of people who can and will enjoy and benefit from the cloud concept, but I'm still not understanding why some of us music fanatics, whose collections are measured in thousands (or tens of thousands) of albums as opposed to thousands of songs (or perhaps hundreds or even dozens of songs, for the average consumer on the cloud), and who have spent enormous amounts of money over the past few decades amassing huge collections, would now desire to pay a fee to access their music. Is it really that much more convenient that it's worth paying more money on top of the huge investment that was already made? I'm probably over-simplifying, but that's how I basically see it.

I always feel alienated when Apple talks in terms of buying "songs". That has never been what we do, has it? Maybe those of us old enough to have bought 45's or even 78's, but for the most part, we don't shop for "songs", we shop for albums. Between that and things such as software that allows us to let a "genius" select what we're going to listen to next, I know I'm not in Kansas anymore. I prefer to stay in Kansas.

I still love my iMac and my iPad and my iPod classics, but I want to make my own decisions when it comes to most things- especially music and how I listen to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always feel alienated when Apple talks in terms of buying "songs". That has never been what we do, has it? Maybe those of us old enough to have bought 45's or even 78's, but for the most part, we don't shop for "songs", we shop for albums.

Yes, irritates me too. If you have a faulty download they refund you the 'song'. The idea that the faulty 'song' makes the whole album a waste of space seems beyond their comprehension.

I too turn all the automatic features off. I can organise it myself on iTunes. And, I have to say, iTunes is excellent for that (except I'd dearly like a way to load a bunch of song titles into an album without having to do each one individually. Can't be that hard to set up - already separated in Excel, should be a one click situation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd dearly like a way to load a bunch of song titles into an album without having to do each one individually.

Bev, are you transferring a lot of music that isn't in "complete album" or "complete CD" form? I rarely have to enter song titles, as everything is automatcally tagged via CDDB when I rip a CD, so I'm wondering what's different for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd dearly like a way to load a bunch of song titles into an album without having to do each one individually.

Bev, are you transferring a lot of music that isn't in "complete album" or "complete CD" form? I rarely have to enter song titles, as everything is automatcally tagged via CDDB when I rip a CD, so I'm wondering what's different for you.

Sometimes it can't trace the album - normally if I'm transferring something I've recorded from vinyl.

Also, in 'Various Artists' compilations I like the name of the performer next to the title in the track title box so I can label the artist as 'Various' or 'Various Blues'. That way I don't get zillions of artists when I look at the iPod. It's relatively easy to find a source with the title/artist together. But I've not found a way to mass input.

Of course in most cases it all happens automatically.

Edited by A Lark Ascending

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bev, I suspected that those were the issues, but I was under the impression that we had reached a point where even most of the more obscure LP's had been databased as a result of people like us digitizing them. Or maybe your "obscure" is different from my "obscure". ;)

I think there is probably a more efficient way of solving your issue with sorting and finding what you want on your iPod, but I have a feeling that since you've already instituted a system of your own, it might be more work than it's worth to attempt a change. I do have zillions of artists on my 150 gb classics, and scrolling is tedious, but by first going to "genre", this cuts down on the amount of scrolling when looking for a particular artist. But you probably knew that. The "search" function is also pretty efficient and easy to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always feel alienated when Apple talks in terms of buying "songs". That has never been what we do, has it? Maybe those of us old enough to have bought 45's or even 78's, but for the most part, we don't shop for "songs", we shop for albums.

Yes, irritates me too. If you have a faulty download they refund you the 'song'. The idea that the faulty 'song' makes the whole album a waste of space seems beyond their comprehension.

Add me to this list. :tup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bev, I suspected that those were the issues, but I was under the impression that we had reached a point where even most of the more obscure LP's had been databased as a result of people like us digitizing them. Or maybe your "obscure" is different from my "obscure". ;)

I think there is probably a more efficient way of solving your issue with sorting and finding what you want on your iPod, but I have a feeling that since you've already instituted a system of your own, it might be more work than it's worth to attempt a change. I do have zillions of artists on my 150 gb classics, and scrolling is tedious, but by first going to "genre", this cuts down on the amount of scrolling when looking for a particular artist. But you probably knew that. The "search" function is also pretty efficient and easy to use.

There's a fair bit of British folk music that has never got to CD - one label notoriously so, that has locked up some major albums due to the awkwardness of the chap with the rights (recently deceased). So if it has never been digitalised it's probably not there on the software that spots albums. Quite a bit of British jazz too.

Yes, I think there is a way of doing it but, as you say, I've already established an approach that works. I essentially work by 'Genre' (make my own up) - within that I find 'Artist' (which is where I get the zillion names on compilations). Where I've quite a lot of music I amend the artist name e.g. Schubert (Piano), Schubert (Orchestral) etc. I've also taken to putting the date of the album first "(1959) Kind of Blue" so it all falls chronologically - helps me work through things with some logic.

Despite my disappointment at the abandonment of the iPod Classic by Apple I have to say I love the control you can have over the music if you ignore the automatic functions in iTunes. It's a brilliant system that ties in superbly with the Classic. It's not broke - a pity it's still being swept aside.

Edited by A Lark Ascending

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always feel alienated when Apple talks in terms of buying "songs". That has never been what we do, has it? Maybe those of us old enough to have bought 45's or even 78's, but for the most part, we don't shop for "songs", we shop for albums. Between that and things such as software that allows us to let a "genius" select what we're going to listen to next, I know I'm not in Kansas anymore. I prefer to stay in Kansas.

And when you realize a single used to be two songs, not one, to me it seems cheap beyond belief!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already understood when MG explained it earlier.

But, the fact that the people you describe are such a niche market explains the exact reason Apple discontinued it.

I have to agree with Impossible on this one.

Agree with him all you want, but it's really this simple:

"According to an earnings report earlier this year, Apple's iPod Classic sales in the final quarter of 2013 had dropped 52 per cent year-on-year. Apple also lost 55 per cent in revenue on all models of the music player, compared to the previous year, and the iPod makes up less than 2 per cent of the company's overall income."

The End

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2750990/RIP-iPod-Apple-silently-kills-Classic-digital-music-player-removing-online-store.html

As the market goes, so goes the product. It's not some nefarious scheme by Apple. It's basic economics.

Edited by Scott Dolan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's basic economics.

They are not talking about economics, but about personal preferences. No need to argue about that. I would have agreed too, except that I'm not an Apple guy and have never owned an "i"-product. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested to hear folks get on with itunes. I use it and understand it but find it laborious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested to hear folks get on with itunes. I use it and understand it but find it laborious.

I think it's crap - I only use it to rip CDs and to sync my ipod. And even for that, amazingly, iTunes doesn't behave the same way as the ipod, which for two things supposed to work together, is incredibly rough.

EG - iTunes recognises that the genre 'Jazz' = (perfectly) the genre 'JAZZ'. And that 'Willis Jackson' = 'WILLIS JACKSON'. But to the ipod, they're not the same. So, unless you're fetishistically consistent in labelling genres and artists, scrolling down the genres on your ipod, you get hundreds of Jazz/JAZZ genres, as it changes each time, and ditto artists. And this is a total pain in the arse if you're looking for R&B or Township Jive.

I used to be able to use iTunes to check my labelling, but can't now because I have v11 of iTunes, because I had to reload my PC a few months ago and couldn't get v10. So this further embuggerance factor means that, when I look at genres in iTunes, it doesn't allow me to look at the albums by artist but only alphabetically. But the ipod does. Or it would if I don't make a mistake in labelling :) Achieving consistency is bloody difficult.

Of course, they both agree in what alphabetical order isn't - it isn't what everyone in the world thinks it is, so 22 Band comes after Zacks Nkosi, not before Abdoulaye Diabate. I haven't YET managed to avoid the panic of thinking that my 22 Band albums have disappeared.

Actually, I haven't a problem with iTunes ripping CDs. About a quarter of my CD collection is on hard drive now, which isn't too bad. K7s take a lot longer; they can't be done in one step, as I have to record them onto a CD first, then read it into the PC. And I have to sit over them, to mark the end of each track. (But that's hardly iTunes fault, of course.)

MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As the market goes, so goes the product. It's not some nefarious scheme by Apple. It's basic economics."

Yes, exactly, this is the whole nub of the problem. It's ok having iPods or whatever but when (not if) the system / company goes under then you've basically lost your collection. That is of course leaving aside the whole Cloud thing - like for instance yes it's true when you buy certain albums on Amazon you get a free download too, but this only works if the Cloud is accessible (ie you've got a signal), same with iCloud music purchases. I bitterly regret ditching some (not all, thankfully) of my vinyl collection in favour of the new technology known as the musicassette (what a joke!). I now buy vinyl secondhand at fairs because I know that the only medium which will still be playable (assuming the resurgence of the medium continues to generate turntables) in 100 years time will be vinyl. There's also the thorny question of (for example) Spotify and hiring your collection. This form of monetising music is becoming more prevalent in other areas such as Microsoft's annual subscription to its "Office 365" suite.

I wish that weren't the case, but even CD players are seemingly archaic now and in the throes of being phased out (which is a bit of a shame as I have most of my collection on that medium - oh and the aforesaid iPod). Even if they do away with turntables altogether at least I can look at the vinyl, admire the artwork, read the sleeve notes and sigh nostalgically, something you can't do with a dead iPod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's basic economics.

They are not talking about economics, but about personal preferences. No need to argue about that. I would have agreed too, except that I'm not an Apple guy and have never owned an "i"-product. :)

"Recurring charges. Constant revenue."

Unless I took the wrong class in school, that is indeed economics. ;)

I'm interested to hear folks get on with itunes. I use it and understand it but find it laborious.

Can only echo what MG posted. It is one of the clunkier pieces of software I've ever used. And it seemingly gets worse with every new release and update. Very frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's basic economics.

They are not talking about economics, but about personal preferences. No need to argue about that. I would have agreed too, except that I'm not an Apple guy and have never owned an "i"-product. :)

"Recurring charges. Constant revenue."

Unless I took the wrong class in school, that is indeed economics. ;)

I'm interested to hear folks get on with itunes. I use it and understand it but find it laborious.

Can only echo what MG posted. It is one of the clunkier pieces of software I've ever used. And it seemingly gets worse with every new release and update. Very frustrating.

This too is basic economics. Do things because you can, not because there is a need for them. In 'The new industrial state', John Kenneth Galbraith discussed the creation of a fictional pop-up toaster which would etch in darker carbon a message (selected from a range at the time of purchase) from politicians, priests or advertisers and noted the ways such items could be made successful by firms in control of their markets.

MG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.