Regression testing the new iPod classic
From earlier this evening:
- [5:14pm cdevers]: i wasn't actually around for the keynote (for a change), so am only vaguely aware of what came out today
- [5:14pm cdevers]: the more annoying bit for me is that the 160gb classic went away.
- [5:15pm cdevers]: i could fill an ipod that big, and was hoping for a still larger one.
- [5:15pm cdevers]: apparently i'm in the minority
- [5:15pm blech]: oh yeah
- [5:15pm cdevers]: going to look into getting a closeout 160gb one i guess
- [5:15pm blech]: 120 is enough for me, and I thought I had a kind of big library.
- [5:15pm blech]: I'm almost surprised the classic isn't just dead.
- [5:15pm cdevers]: i think it will be, once flash gets a bit cheaper
- [5:15pm cdevers]: this could be the last iteration
- [5:16pm cdevers]: still, it's weird to me that, for what appears to be the first time in ipod history the max available capacity just went *down*
- [5:17pm cdevers]: i probably have around that much in music, but if i want to put in videos et al, it quickly gets much bigger
It's weird to me that, for what appears to be the first time in ipod history the max available capacity just went *down*.
Think about that for a moment. Downgrades for Apple, as they are for the rest of the computer & electronics industry, are a rare thing.
Back in 1999, Apple notoriously dropped the speed on the then-new Powermac G4, forced by production problems with Motorola to throttle back from 400mhz to 350mhz.
Toward the end of the Powermac G5 lifespan, there was another stall of sorts, as the available range of models went from twin 2.0, 2.3, and 2.7 ghz CPUs to single dual-core 2.0, 2.3, and quad-core 2.5. Sure, there were some benefits from going from two separate CPUs to two CPU cores on one die, and there was arguably some benefit in going from two fast CPUs to four slower CPUs on the high end, but come on. A speed drop is a speed drop, and it's obvious what was going on there: IBM was too busy cranking out PowerPC-derived Cell CPUs for the Playstation & other applications, and didn't have time to bother with Apple anymore. The Intel transition was underway, and that was that.
A similar transition is underway now with iPods.
While companies are still cranking out ever-higher capacity hard drives -- Toshiba today announced 240gb 1.8" drives while Apple was announcing the "one size fits all" 120gb iPod Classic -- there's a widespread belief that flash-based storage will eventually take over much of the market currently dominated by hard drives, at least for portable devices, if not also desktops & servers too, eventually. Witness the transition from the iPod mini to the iPod nano, the hard-drive-free iPhone & iPod Touch, and the flash memory drive option for the Macbook Air.
We haven't finished the transition from hard drives to solid state memory yet -- hard drive iPods are obviously still around for another year, and most laptops still have hard drives -- but maybe we crossed an inflection point over the last year, when first most of the iPod lineup was hard-drive-free, and the Macbook Air introduced flash memory to Apple laptops for the first time.
Anyway, that's all background to the simple fact that, for the first time in the history of the iPod range, last year's models offered higher capacity than this year's. In the past, they always either maintained or increased the available storage on the high end model. Not this year.
It could be that the next version of the iPod Classic -- if it's even called that anymore -- will going to be flash based, with around the capacity of the 120gb Classic, but otherwise a drop-in replacement for the current high capacity iPods.
And I'm sure that, 5 years from now, you'll be able to have much more storage in your pocket than anything available today. Terabyte shuffle? Sure, why not.
But right now, we've taken a step backwards.
And Apple had never made a regression like that with an iPod before today.
Comments