09-10-2009, 09:12 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 367
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
I don't know what the numbers are, but given the way Apple ignores the Classic (hell, even the name tells you that...) I don't think they're big sellers. It seems like Apple is keeping it around to keep some people happy, but are there a lot of those people? I'm not so sure...
|
Maybe not a lot, but I'm certainly one of them. As much as I like my Touch and my iPhone, my two HD based iPods are my main music machines because I can have my entire iTunes library on them. The 80 GB stays in the car and the 120 GB is my "daily driver." I hate having to pick and choose what I'm going to put on my flash based iPods, so I don't. Neither my iPhone nor my Touch currently have any music on them. I use my HD based iPods for that.
My son, on the other hand, is perfectly content with flash-based stuff, but his iTunes library is only a small fraction of the size of mine.
__________________
XBox 360 S, 16GB iPhone 4S, iPod Classic 160 GB, Dell Inspiron Mini 1018; Macs: Mac Mini 2.4 GHz 6 GB RAM; Macbook 2.0 GHz 3 GB RAM; MacBook Air 11", 24" Cinema Display
|
| |
|
|
|
09-10-2009, 09:22 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 676
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimsonsky
Am I the only one that remembers that the 120 GB classic replaced the 160 GB classic and that Apple is just bringing back something it had previously killed?
|
Well, yes and no. The new classic is a thin single platter device for $249 whereas the one from 2 years ago was a double platter device sold for $349. But yeah, they're otherwise pretty similar and nothing much new.
__________________
64 GB iPad 2 WiFi, Apple TV 2, 32 GB iPhone 4
Early 2011 MacBook Pro 13" (dual boot with Windows 7), Early 2009 Mac Mini
|
| |
|
|
|
09-10-2009, 09:27 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 676
|
|
I find it interesting that Apple has been getting panned on the blogs for only doubling storage for the same price points on the Touch (plus a faster processor on the mid and high end models) and not adding a camera, etc. But at the same time, the blogs have mostly applauded the new nano which didn't increase storage (let alone double it) but added a camera, FM radio, and pedometer (although they did lower their higher price point by $20).
I too expected a camera on the new Touch.
But I bet the new nanos and Touches sell like hotcakes this holiday. Time will tell.
Not that I really care either way. The only iPod I plan to buy any more is the next gen (2010) iPhone.
__________________
64 GB iPad 2 WiFi, Apple TV 2, 32 GB iPhone 4
Early 2011 MacBook Pro 13" (dual boot with Windows 7), Early 2009 Mac Mini
|
| |
|
|
|
09-10-2009, 09:47 PM
|
|
Oracle
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 984
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dp
Bam! They have added watched folders:
http://lifehacker.com/5356619/itunes...-add-new-music
Well, since it isn't advertised and it's one specific folder, this isn't the true feature delivered yet -- apparently just a quiet test. However, with it implemented even in only one specific folder, there are a million ways to get this now to work as anyway could expect monitored folders to work with a few small tweaks. |
I've actually been doing this with a folder action set to a very, very simple automator script (it is a two step action, actually.) It's always worked fine. But I'll definitely replace it with this. |
| |
|
|
|
09-10-2009, 11:56 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20
|
|
Automator to the rescue!
Quote:
|
I've actually been doing this with a folder action set to a very, very simple automator script (it is a two step action, actually.) It's always worked fine. But I'll definitely replace it with this.
|
Yeah, pretty easy with automator, but the Win folks don't get that benefit. I've never had much concern for folder monitoring myself as I always want to scrub and edit tags based on my own conventions anyway when I import music rather than letting anything that may be downloaded or added from another source or added by someone else on my computer or on the network just populate the music with their own naming and tagging schemes. But it's nice to see Apple working on this, even in a crude state at this point.
Last edited by dp; 09-11-2009 at 12:06 AM..
|
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2009, 07:07 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 359
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
- ...I think it's a huge mistake for the Zune team to drop the small form-factor Zune. If I ever manage to convince my brain to take me back to the gym again, I'm not going to strap my expensive, 32 GB Zune HD to my arm. I'm going to bring a cheap SanDisk Sansa Clip, a device that's a pain to sync music onto. I'd much rather be using a really small, Flash-based Zune (even if it didn't have a screen).
|
I just posted a similar rant. It's a huge mistake. Microsoft needs to understand that people want variety--at least 2 or 3 different form factor options. Taking the Zune HD with me to run or weight lift is NOT an ideal situation. The thought of dropping it while weight lifting or running (something that happens with my small Zune 8GB), getting sweat on the gorgeous OLED touch screen frequently or just plain being stolen from the gym makes me cringe. It's a theft magnet, and it's larger than ideal to strap on my arm or on shorts while working out.
I might delete my other post, but overall I'm wondering what is going on with the Zune development team. The Zune HD is great move, but Microsoft is still clearly missing it with these decisions. I don't really like the iPod nano, but with my smaller Zune 8GB in very worn condition (after a year of carrying it to the gym), I need to replace it soon and will have no choice but to buy an iPod nano now. And if I do that, it makes no sense for me to use two different programs for managing music on two different devices. So I might juts go the Apple route all-together now. I'd buy an iPod Touch AND a Nano as long as I can manage them with the same program.
The only thing I absolutely hate about iTunes however is its peer-to-peer system instead of central/server based media library option. Having to "license" 5 computers for playing music around the house is plain silly to me.
They just can't just get it right can they? LOL |
| |
|
|
|
09-12-2009, 08:33 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,520
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by eriqcook
it makes no sense for me to use two different programs for managing music on two different devices. So I might juts go the Apple route all-together now. I'd buy an iPod Touch AND a Nano as long as I can manage them with the same program.
|
You make a good point. Since the Zune player doesn't give you an option to use other players consumers are forced to choose. Discontinuing the flash players may have just been a numbers game to focus their resources.
I don't know how many people tend to own more than one sized device but even if is low, there are probably a substantial amount of people that only have a small form factor.
Does anyone know the sales percentages of Zune flash players vs. Zune hard drive players?
Perhaps MS' answer to this will to open up the Zune ecosystem to other vendors.
__________________
Phone: Nexus one Backup Phone: AT&T Samsung Jack; Future Phone: I'm Watching WP7; Media Player: Platinum Zune HD 32GB; Home Server: HP MediaSmart Server LX195 Console: XBox 360, PS3, Wii |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
