I few weeks ago I imagined what kind of flash-based iPod Apple might make that wouldn't "end up in a drawer", as Steve Jobs famously described the competition last year. So how lame was I? Let's take a look.
A 512Mb player holds about 125 songs using Apple's calculations, or about 8 hours of music. A 1Gb player gets you 250 songs, or about 16 hours of tunes.
Hey, I guessed the capacities right! And, I know how to multiply. Right on!
...if Apple could make a flash-based player that is somehow super-easy to update, it might be an interesting product. You could make iPod updating painless with a two-part solution: a new version of iTunes, and updating over WiFi. With WiFi in the iPod, you wouldn't have to remember to dock it, or even have it in the same room as the computer.
No WiFi, of course, and my hardware-savvy buddies ridiculed me for ever thinking that a little bitty iPod could handle the power requirements of WiFi. But there is a new version of iTunes that makes updating easier. I did some more predicting on that point.
A new version of iTunes could add features to smart playlists and the iPod interface, like a timer that says how often to update the iPod -- like "every day, replace the songs I've listened to with fresh ones" -- and an assistant-type interface that makes it easier to build smart playlists for small capacity players.
My solution is a little overwrought, but iTunes 4.7.1 did add AutoFill, a super-easy way to pick tunes for your iPod. So I was, let's say, 47.1% right. (And by the way: adding a whole new feature to the UI only merits a second-level dot release of iTunes? I guess something serious must be in store for iTunes 4.8 [or perhaps 5.0]).
And just to make it even more drop-dead simple, we might not even have playlists on our flash-based iPod, just a music library.
And so we do! Another lucky guess for me.
With the updating problem solved, Apple's industrial design could really go crazy with a flash-based iPod. It could be smaller than a mini (click wheel + 2 or 3 line display, a la iTunes), thinner, and with better battery life. And if you think the mini is tiny-sexy, imagine the appeal of this one -- the iPod pocket.
It certainly is smaller than a mini! And there sure is a small display -- vanishingly small. ;-) Looks like I didn't quite Think Different enough. And although the iPod shuffle fits in your pocket, my guess at the product name was dead wrong.
Let's make them in six great colors. At $199, even people who already have iPods would try to figure out how to justify buying an iPod pocket.
No six great colors, way off on $199 (in a good way), and as for people who already have iPods buying the new ones -- well, what do you think?
Even though I blew it on the wireless docking, I still think that's a killer feature for the future. Unfortunately, Bluetooth is too slow and WiFi too power hungry, so I don't know how you could fix this one. C'mon, iPod hardware geniuses! The iPod shuffle is a feather-light device, both in form and function, but plugging it into your computer to update songs is a relatively heavyweight operation. That goes for software too, because you have to wait for iTunes to launch (if it isn't running already), and in my experience it doesn't always launch automatically anyway. You could imagine a sort of "iTunes lite" that runs as a background application, then wakes up fast when you connect your iPod, pops up a progress window, does its syncing business, then goes away. As for the six great colors and the tiny display, I still think we'll see those on future members of the iPod shuffle family.
One more thing about the iPod shuffle: one of its best features is the word "iPod" on the box. I have a feeling that if Apple had started out with a no-screen music player, it might not be successful. But music lovers will give the iPod shuffle a chance in the first place because of its bigger siblings' success and Apple's current shining reputation, and that $99 price helps too.
Recent Comments