Column

Ted Landau's User Friendly View - Apple's New iPods: Which One to Buy?

Pity the poor consumer who just decided to get their very first iPod this holiday season. That's assuming there is anyone left that does not already possess an iPod of some sort. This mythical consumer is faced with choosing from among five different iPod models, as announced at the Apple event on September 5, each of which have been at least minimally enhanced. Which one to buy? It's not an easy choice. They all have their merits and demerits. For those of you who are facing this happy dilemma, I offer my personal guide to Apple's new iPod fall lineup:

The iPod shuffle. The only thing new about the shuffle are the new colors it sports. I can appreciate the shuffle as a design marvel (it's quite cool the way it can clip to your pants pocket and of course it's incredibly tiny). Still, the only reason I would prefer a shuffle is price. If budget constraints force you to stay under $100 for an iPod, the shuffle (at $79) is for you. Otherwise, the limitations due to an absence of a screen and a 1GB flash drive are just too great.

The iPod nano. Of all the new iPod models, the nano (at $149 for 4GB and $199 for 8GB) is the one that received the most complete overhaul. It sports a new larger screen, a new user interface that supports Apple's Cover Flow display, and (most significantly) it can play video (TV shows, movies, and video podcasts). This has long been Apple's most popular iPod model. The new version should further solidify its top position. By making the nano video-capable, Apple is also positioned to increase the sales of its iTunes Store video offerings.

The nano is a nearly perfect iPod. If you (like me) have lamented that you wanted the small size of the nano combined with the video capability of its larger iPod sibling, your laments have been answered. About the only negative of the nano is the more clunky square shape (necessitated by the larger screen required for video viewing). If you use an iPod only for music, you may be disappointed by the compromise in design here, preferring the old rectangular nano instead. Still, this is the iPod I recommend for almost anyone deciding among an iPod shuffle, nano, or classic.

The iPod classic. The newly named iPod classic is the latest iteration of what used to be called just the iPod. It retains all of the assets of the model it replaces while adding two significant enhancements: It uses the same redesigned interface that comes with the new nano and it offers gargantuan storage sizes of either 80GB ($249) or 160GB ($349). Still, I predict that the classic will be the biggest loser, in terms of sales, of any of the new iPods. Compared to an iPod nano, the only reason to prefer a classic is to get the larger storage capability. Given that the previous nano (which had no video features at all) outsold the previous iPod, I don't see the large hard drive as driving much sales. Still, there are a few people with large iTunes libraries who want their entire library on an iPod. The iPod classic is for them.

On the other side of the fence, assuming you are content with 8 or 16 GB, you can move up to an iPod touch (as described in a moment) for as little as $50 less than a 160GB iPod classic. Some users may prefer the classic's click wheel to a touchscreen. Indeed, I have written elsewhere about the downsides of using the iPhone as an iPod while driving, precisely because of its touchscreen. That aside, the iPhone touch offers many more features than the classic.

Caught between the nano on one side and the touch on the other, the market for the classic should collapse. I wouldn't be surprised if the classic disappears altogether by the end of next year.

The iPod touch. The iPod touch ($299 for 8GB and $399 for 16GB) is the only completely new iPod, although it is one that has been expected since the iPhone was first announced. Essentially, it is an iPhone without phone or mail capabilities. If you have been hungering for an iPhone but only to use it as an iPod, if you have been devouring the details of the hacks that allow an iPhone to work as an iPod without paying for an AT&T phone contract, the iPod touch is for you.

But wait -- there's more. In addition to having all of the iPod features of the iPhone, the touch comes with Wi-Fi built-in. This means you can surf the Web, play YouTube videos or -- via the new iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store -- download songs directly from the iTunes Store to your iPod touch. The touch also supports a new Starbucks Wi-Fi download option (as described here). The touch even has one feature the iPhone does not: video out; use it to show touch content on a TV or other large display.

Note: Because the touch does not support the EDGE network (which is an AT&T feature), you will not be able to get online virtually anywhere (such as in your car while driving) as you can with the iPhone.

The iPhone. The iPhone is an iPod too. So I include it here. No changes to iPhone's hardware were announced at the Apple event. However, Apple did make three significant improvements to the iPhone: (1) After a soon-to-be-released software update, the iPhone will support the same iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store that comes with the iPod touch; (2) you can now add your own custom ringtones (at $.99 a pop) from selected music in the iTunes Store; and (3) the price of the 8GB iPhone dropped from $599 to $399 (with the 4GB model vanishing from the line-up).

The $200 price drop is truly stunning. This means you can now get an 8GB iPhone for the same price as a 16GB iPhone touch. For me, this makes the iPhone the better value. I'd happily trade the extra 8GB for all the additional features of the iPhone (the Map program is almost worth it by itself). However, the not-so-hidden extra cost of the iPhone is the required two-year contract with AT&T. If that turns you off, or if you simply prefer to keep your phone and iPod separate, or if you live in a country where you cannot get an iPhone (which is pretty much everywhere except the U.S. right now), then you want the touch.

Note: The iPhone's ringtone feature is quite slick. You can select any part of a song, up to 30 seconds long, and define it as your ringtone. Fades are automatically added at the start and finish. However, it only works with iTunes Store music. It will not work with music you already own (such as songs copied from your CDs). Don't despair. There are alternatives (such as Ambrosia Software's iToner) that easily allow you to convert any of your music into a ringtone for your iPhone. With a ringtone hack, you'll probably want some audio software to edit songs down to a 30-second or less clip; but it otherwise works quite smoothly. Unfortunately, syncing your iPhone after updating to iTunes 7.4 (the new version that supports Apple's ringtone feature) will wipe out your existing custom ringtones. Ambrosia is working on a solution.

The executive summary. Which iPod should you buy? I would largely rule out the shuffle or the classic. If you want to keep costs down and are content with the click wheel interface, get the iPod nano. Otherwise, get the iPhone -- unless you don't want a phone, in which case get the touch. If the choices seem especially tough this year, thank Apple for making the entire line-up so desirable. One thing is certain: Apple's dominance of the MP3 player market isn't going to decline anytime soon.

Ted Landau is the founder of MacFixIt, and the author of Take Control of Your iPhone and other Mac help books.


Ted Landau is the founder of MacFixIt, and the author of Take Control of Your iPhone and other Mac help books.

Send polite comments to , or post your comments below.

User Friendly View Archives.

11 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

tedlandau said:

member since 18 Jul 2005 with 40 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

After I submitted the above article, Apple announced the $100 credit for those of us who purchased an iPhone prior to the price drop. While the big news was the credit itself, I was more intrigued by the phrase "this holiday season," which was repeatedly used both in the open letter and in the original press release regarding the price drop. I know I am going out on a limb here (and it may well get cut off behind me), but I am convinced that this means that new iPhones, at a higher price, are coming in January.

I explain my logic in detail in this blog entry: http://www.tedmac.com/slantedviewpoint/index.php/archives/2007/64

- Ted

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Well Ted I guess we are lepers as in my family of 6 no one has ever had any iPod or Zune. I do still have my Intel Pocket Concert though that I won about 7 or 8 years ago, all 256K of memory but really don't use it much. Me and the better half just don't see a need for an iPod or any other player as our home record player and dual cassette deck are working just fine.

Oh, the 8 track in the horse barn is doing just fine also although it is getting harder to find the tapes even at flea markets.

Jack

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

I think sales of the "Classic" iPod will be better than you predict here. Don't forget that particularly with the new higher storage capacity, and the ability to use the iPod as an external drive, it kills more than one bird with a single stone. I have an 80 GB model I bought only about a year ago. I could have easily settled for the 30 GB model, but got the higher capacity one because I also use it as a USB drive to store and carry files with me that I can easily share between my iMac G5, my 12" PowerBook, or any other computer I need to use them on. The 160 GB model gives you that, plus more storage space, plus the ability to carry a larger library of music and video to watch.

Quote this post ↓

Avalon0387 said:

member since 25 Apr 2007 with 3 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Ted,

I too think you are wrong about the classic. I do freelance and EVERY ONE of my projects will fit on the new 160gB classic along with most of my music collection. How cool is that? I would love an iPod touch, but 16gB is puny compared to what I need.

Bill H.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

I have avoided buying an iPod for months pending the release of new models. The new Nano & Touch are really innovative. However I just want a music player with a navigational screen. The old Nano was ideal—just the right size. I was hoping for a significant increase in storage plus a price reduction. Oh yes, I want it in black cheap!! Now I'm not sure what to do. I don't like the squarish profile of the new Nano for a portable music player. I don't need or especially want video. Cover flow is useless to me. Looks like Apple is moving beyond just audio. Maybe in future I'll find a practical use for video. In the mean time, if there is a fire sale on old obsolete Nanos, then it was worth waiting.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

As I posted above, I have an 80GB 5.5G w/video that I also use for file storage. I actually like the new Nano... if I was in the market for just something to play music and watch an occasional TV show on, then I'd get one. But hey, that's not what I use my iPod for...

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Ted, do not discount the large classic 160GB ipod. For myself and many others music storage is #1 reason for the ipod -I long ago filled up my 80 GB ipod and this holds only 10% of my music collection. This way my most popular albums are on the ipod and it is the primary source of music for whole house audio. The shuffle feature is especially wonderful, using whole house audio with good speakers. With 160 GB the added benefit is that now it is possible to record at a higher bit-rate I currently use 128 kpbs but will now record using 256. I think the video feature is what is over-rated (I could care less about video on such a tiny screen). My question is- will you finally be able to shuffle in specific genres? It would be nice to be able to shuffle just jazz, or solely classical for example.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

There is a Refurbished iPod nano, 4GB - Silver, at the Apple online store for $129. This looks about the most optimal choice for me, but only if it has the "Shuffle" feature.

Anyone know about this?

Thanks,

WingSpread

Quote this post ↓

tedlandau said:

member since 18 Jul 2005 with 40 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Replying to above comments about the iPod classic:

There is no doubt that the large hard drive of the iPod classic offers unique advantages over the other models, as you have all made clear. I am with you. I own the prior generation iPod video myself, and thought it was the best model to get at the time.

My concern is whether or not there are enough people who will remain in this camp to keep the classic line going as we move forward.

For starters, many people never wanted a classic-style model to begin with, which is what made the nano the best selling iPod.

With the new line-up, people who would prefer a classic primarily for its video capability can now move to either a nano or a touch. The touch will also draw people who prefer the touchscreen interface and Wi-Fi capability over the click wheel Wi-Fi-less classic. If the day ever comes when you can get an iPod touch with 32GB or more, I believe the tilt toward preferring the touch will be insurmountably steep. At this point, the only people who will still want a classic will be those who demand at least an 80GB hard drive. While such people exist, I doubt they exist in enough numbers to justify Apple keeping the classic line going.

I do see one fly in this ointment. Even if the iPod touch came with a 160GB drive, there would still be one key difference between the touch and the classic (aside from the interface): The classic is essentially an external hard drive while the touch is a computer running Mac OS X. Currently (hacks aside), that also makes the touch a "closed" system that will not mount on a Mac to work as an external drive. Those that prefer the open storage of the classic may help keep it in the game a bit longer. But I doubt that even this will be enough to save the classic in the long run.

As always, I could be wrong. But that's my story and (for now anyway) I am sticking to it.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Hiya Ted!

There's one issue that no one seems to have brought up concerning the iPod Classic vs the Touch: the ability to record. I use my iPod video to record often! Whether its voice memos or music jams at my friends; I find the Micromemo recording with that little boom mic picks up sound very nicely.

<br>

I planned to get an iPod touch; but now I"m not so sure, because I do need to be able to record, and as far as I've researched you cannot record on it. The video I have actually belongs to my sister; so it looks like if I want a Touch, I also have to buy another iPod to record. So, none of these new iPods really fit all my needs and desires.

ilene of the Hess Macworld Events List

Quote this post ↓

tedlandau said:

member since 18 Jul 2005 with 40 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Guest wrote:
There's one issue that no one seems to have brought up concerning the iPod Classic vs the Touch: the ability to record. I use my iPod video to record often!

You are absolutely correct. I did not consider the issue of peripherals when writing this column. Of course, it is often the case that new iPods "break" the ability of existing peripherals to work. This is no exception. In most cases, the third parties adapt and come out with new compatible peripherals for the new models. I expect this will happen for the iPod touch, although it will likely take at least a few months.

- Ted

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.