As you may have heard, Apple announced an updated iPod line-up today. Here’s what the front page of Apple.com looks like:
There are two interesting things revealed by this:
For the first time, there isn’t actually a product named simply “iPod” in the line-up. It strikes me that the term “iPod” now refers to the entire family of products. By generalizing the branding I think Apple might actually make “iPod” more ubiquitous than it already is (I’m not really sure what comes after “ubiquitous.” Omni-present?).
The iPhone is an iPod.
Wait. Is it? Here’s the thing, up until now “iPod” has meant a device that it primarily an audio device. Yes, the iPod proper (now iPod classic) has had photos and videos added to it, but, excluding the short lived iPod Photo branding, they’ve always been iPods. In the consumer’s mind, an iPod is an audio device.
That is, it was. I believe what Apple’s doing with their branding is positioning the iPod family to be more general than that. If it’s a high quality multimedia device produced by Apple, then it’s an iPod. Inevitably, more and more functionality is going to be added to these devices, and as is the case with the iPod touch, sometimes these added features will be to the detriment of it’s music device-ness, but as a whole the devices will get better and better. And they will be iPods, regardless of what they do.
FYI, iPod touch is an Inferior iPod
One of the reasons why I think branding is important here is that strictly as an audio device the iPod touch is going to be worse off than the other iPods. While you gain the slick and fun Cover Flow, you lose the ability to use the device without needing to look at it. Think about this, at the gym, in the car, on the bus, you can fast forward or skip songs without ever having to look at the device. iPod shuffle took that idea to the bank. Screens are nice, but not necessary for an audio device. Because the screens are the interface for the iPhone and iPod touch, you have in to interact with it to actually interact with the device. That is, frankly, a step back.
But, they’re not strictly audio devices anymore. Losing the ability to switch songs while driving is a short price to pay for Internet (not to be used while driving!) or a functional calendar. Branding makes a difference.
Mac vs iPod? Or Mac as iPod?
Paul Thurrott, Microsoft corporate shill brilliant Mac journalist, has predicted, on many occasions, that Apple would just leave the computer market in favor of the much more profitable iPod market. What I think is truly interesting here is that with Apple loosening up on what an iPod is it’s quite possible that the iPod and the Mac markets might intersect, if not outright merge. People have speculated a tablet based Mac for some time (MacBook Thin, or something like that), but what if it’s actually an iPod big that gets released? Make the touch screen palm sized instead of pocket sized and you have basically a tiny tablet Mac. Weird.
I don’t think Apple would ever dump the Mac line entirely, but I would be very interested to see what happens as iPods get bigger. The iPhone is basically a PDA now, and it looks like the iPod touch is very close to that. Maybe, what, another year and we might have that tablet Mac, only not actually branded as a Mac.
Tags: iPhone
Ordering my iPod Touch today!!
As someone with a 3G iPod, the iPod touch is an improvement. Sure, I can’t use an iPod touch without looking at it, but I could never use my 3G that way either.
(The 3G had a particularly stupid design. The 2G before it and the 4G after were fine, it was just a 3G thing.)