[Tiresias]

When are we likely to see 80GB iPods with iPhone-like interface and big screens?

[hickey]

tomorrow.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

When are we likely to see 80GB iPods with iPhone-like interface and big screens?

When the iPhone stops selling well.

[Tiresias]

But it is inevitable, right?

[Dakar²]

You know, I just don't feel confident about that.

[TETENAL]

YouTube - iPod Firmware Update

[Dakar²]

If that's the coverflow video, all i can say is, I don't use that feature in iTunes, let alone an iPod.

[Visnaut]

Clearly, Apple wants all the buzz to be on the iPhone right now. So we won't see any full-screen iPods to confuse consumers, since both products inevitably would look almost the same.

They won't let the iPod video languish for too long though, otherwise, competitors will. I'm sure that by late fall we'll see an updated iPod line with a 'real' video iPod.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

If that's the coverflow video, all i can say is, I don't use that feature in iTunes, let alone an iPod.

It's all that's keeping me waiting for the next generation.

The second CoverFlow was released by SteelSkies software two years ago, I desperately wanted it on the iPod.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by analogika 

It's all that's keeping me waiting for the next generation.

The second CoverFlow was released by SteelSkies software two years ago, I desperately wanted it on the iPod.

I just haven't seen the advantage over a list.

Maybe I'll enjoy it better for randomness on the ipod, but I can't imagine it won't be laggy as all hell.

[ort888]

Yeah, it's an awesome effect, but not really that practical. I don't think I would use it much in the real world.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Yeah, it's an awesome effect, but not really that practical. I don't think I would use it much in the real world.

I'm curious how he uses it as well.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I just haven't seen the advantage over a list.

Maybe I'll enjoy it better for randomness on the ipod, but I can't imagine it won't be laggy as all hell.

For me, and I presume many other humans, browsing my music library visually via album covers as opposed to a list of titles is significantly easier. I can recognize an album by it's cover much faster than by reading it's name. I would compare it to having text in the Dock vs. icons. But that's just my personal preference. To each his own.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

For me, and I presume many other humans, browsing my music library visually via album covers as opposed to a list of titles is significantly easier. I can recognize an album by it's cover much faster than by reading it's name. I would compare it to having text in the Dock vs. icons. But that's just my personal preference. To each his own.

Hmm... What do you mean by browse? (Looking for a specific album or just meandering?)

[analogika]

One reason I always hated CDs is because cover art is integral to the product. I love looking through vinyl albums, recognizing stuff or pulling it out because it looks intriguing.

CDs have those stupid little jewel cases with that stupid little artwork (with very VERY few exceptions), and are still annoyingly inconvenient. With mp3s/iTunes/iPods, the simple convenience has won me over for every-day listening, and since CoverFlow, I can still browse by cover.

LoveloveloveLOVE it.

[ort888]

I never listen to albums anymore anyway. I ALWAYS have my iPod on shuffle.

For me, coverflow would be useless. I can see how someone might enjoy it though.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I never listen to albums anymore anyway. I ALWAYS have my iPod on shuffle.

I would more often, but the fact is, I have like a 10:1 skip to play ratio and it gets awfully slow after a while. I need to create some better playlists, me thinks. (But at home? 90% random)

[ort888]

I've got a crazy system in place. All 14,000 of my songs are rated and I have a series of smart playlists that randomize my songs based on rating, date added and frequency played.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I've got a crazy system in place. All 14,000 of my songs are rated and I have a series of smart playlists that randomize my songs based on rating, date added and frequency played.

frequency played?

But yeah, 75% of my library is rated and I use that and last played and play count to my full advantage.

Edit: I really wish half-ratings were easier to use, because it'd help a lot. Feels like an ever growing percentage of my library is hitting my 2-star grey area.

[analogika]

I generally hate shuffling.

I tend to actually select music I intend to listen to, rather than having it blathering at me all day in the background, and it's generally an actual album.

Laurie Anderson once said that she loved vinyl because it put you to the choice every twenty minutes of continuing to listen, selecting something different, or just turning it off. With CDs, people just tend to let them play through the whole 70 minutes, even if they lose interest.

I think that might be a large part of why the music industry is "dying" - 70-minute albums and party shuffle reinforce that people are losing interest in actively listening to (and being actually prepared to pay for) music.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I generally hate shuffling.

I tend to actually select music I intend to listen to, rather than having it blathering at me all day in the background, and it's generally an actual album.

The reason I skip too much is because I listen to what's playing. If I wasn't paying attention I'd just let it shuffle autonomously.

Hell, on really good days, a random song will come on, remind me of another song which I'll pick next, then let it go random again till I get inspired again.

[Dakar²]

analogika, do you keep many incomplete albums in your library?

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

frequency played?

But yeah, 75% of my library is rated and I use that and last played and play count to my full advantage.

Edit: I really wish half-ratings were easier to use, because it'd help a lot. Feels like an ever growing percentage of my library is hitting my 2-star grey area.

Yeah, the #1 factor is rating. 5 Star songs get played about once a month, 4 star about once every two months and 3 star songs get played about once every 6 months. I have a lot of 3 star songs.

As for frequency played... I have separate playlists for my least played songs in each rating category, so they get moved up the cue sooner than something I've had in my collection for 10 years.

I also have a TON of 2 star songs. Over half my collection is two star songs. The cutoff for me is three stars, so a 2 star song is one that is decent, but not worthy of being in my mix. 1 star songs are songs I actively dislike.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Hmm... What do you mean by browse? (Looking for a specific album or just meandering?)

I rarely ever approach my music library with the intent of listening to a specific artist or song. I usually browse my library until I see something that strikes my fancy. I don't bother with ratings. I've got way too many songs to try to rate them all. Plus I tend to be fickle, so something I rate a 5 on one day would get a 2 on another.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Yeah, the #1 factor is rating. 5 Star songs get played about once a month, 4 star about once every two months and 3 star songs get played about once every 6 months. I have a lot of 3 star songs.

As for frequency played... I have separate playlists for my least played songs in each rating category, so they get moved up the cue sooner than something I've had in my collection for 10 years.

I also have a TON of 2 star songs. Over half my collection is two star songs. The cutoff for me is three stars, so a 2 star song is one that is decent, but not worthy of being in my mix. 1 star songs are songs I actively dislike.

Sounds similar to mine (particularly the rating), only more specific/finessed.

At work I try to work off of Top Forgotten (10+ plays, 2 or more stars, not played in the past 2 weeks), and Top Underplayed (Less that 10 plays, 3 or more stars, not in the last 2 weeks). If I'm moody, I just go straight to Top Rated (4 or more stars, 10+ plays)

We should probably start another playlist thread

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I rarely ever approach my music library with the intent of listening to a specific artist or song. I usually browse my library until I see something that strikes my fancy. I don't bother with ratings. I've got way too many songs to try to rate them all. Plus I tend to be fickle, so something I rate a 5 on one day would get a 2 on another.

That makes complete sense. And yeah, I don't like browsing the lists on my iPod which is why I usually go random. But coverflow is fairly slow on my iMac (you can't just hold the arrow button and see every cover, you need to tap and let them load), so it would worse on an ipod I imagine.

Also, with 1600 albums I'd still only peruse a very small percentage of my library. Not that I think my library is any bigger than anyone else here.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

analogika, do you keep many incomplete albums in your library?

No.

Likewise, I have very few incomplete vinyl albums on the shelf.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by analogika 

No.

That's a huge difference then.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Yeah, the #1 factor is rating. 5 Star songs get played about once a month, 4 star about once every two months and 3 star songs get played about once every 6 months. I have a lot of 3 star songs.

See, that doesn't work for me AT ALL.

Björk, for example, would have a huge number of "five star" ratings, but I can only listen to her stuff every so often. When it's a "björk" day, I'l go through two or three of her albums, though.

I also find it impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to rip apart albums and only listen to individual tracks. Very often, what might only be a "two star" song is perfect wedged into the sequence of songs on the B-side of that album.

To each 'is own, of course, but in very many cases, the sequence of songs is a vital part of musical context. Who would listen to Pink Floyd's "The Great Gig in the Sky" but as the conclusion of Side A of The Dark Side of the Moon? (Of course, it makes the most sense if you actually have to pause to flip the record before it hits you with "Money". )

Likewise, Madonna's "Take a Bow" is probably pretty much unbearable, but it's a very sweet closer for the B-Side of the "Bedtime Stories" album - particularly after the Björk/de Vries-penned "Bedtime Story"...

[Dakar²]

Haha, I have 'pause' track with 5 second of silence. I compiled playlists to mirror old mixtapes from when I was a teenager and I use the track to simulate the wait while the tape changes sides. (I usually varied the feel of my tapes on each side, or had 'opening' and 'closing' tracks for each side)

[analogika]

Heh.

I have a couple of old mixtapes from when I was a teen, but after compiling them as mp3s, I've decided that I really have to actually record the tapes themselves. Somehow, the fact that they were second-generation tape copies from unknown-generation VHS music video compilations and heavily compressed and distorted probably several times along the way were absolutely integral to the experience at the time.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by analogika 

particularly after the Björk/de Vries-penned "Bedtime Story"...

I did not know this, but it does not surprise me at all.

I love that song too.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I also find it impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to rip apart albums and only listen to individual tracks. Very often, what might only be a "two star" song is perfect wedged into the sequence of songs on the B-side of that album.

Excellent point. I almost always listen to albums in their entirety. I don't know if I've ever used the shuffle functionality. If I want to mix different artists songs together, I will create a playlist so I can organize them into a specific order.

I believe we have officially hijacked this thread.

Getting back to the original topic... I'm a little surprised that Apple hasn't yet announced the new iPhone-esque iPod. I don't think it will take anything away from the iPhone as they are (in my simple mind) two very different markets. Additionally, it will years before the iPhone is released worldwide. It'll probably be 2009 before the iPhone is available for me (in Trinidad & Tobago). C'mon Apple... gimme my new iPod!!!!

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I believe we have officially hijacked this thread.

Hey, this is the good kind of hijack.

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Getting back to the original topic... I'm a little surprised that Apple hasn't yet announced the new iPhone-esque iPod. I don't think it will take anything away from the iPhone as they are (in my simple mind) two very different markets.

I'd disagree and say hardcore people who have been wanting this will buy the phone just for that... but then I think 8GB isn't alot for movies.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Hey, this is the good kind of hijack.

I'd disagree and say hardcore people who have been wanting this will buy the phone just for that... but then I think 8GB isn't alot for movies.

8 GB is useless for an iPod IMHO. Also, the iPhone is limited to the US until the end of this year at the earliest. As I said before, those of us in remote areas of the world won't see the iPhone for a very long time. Apple should move quickly to offer it's next generation iPod worldwide. I'd buy an iPod tomorrow if it were available.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Excellent point. I almost always listen to albums in their entirety. I don't know if I've ever used the shuffle functionality. If I want to mix different artists songs together, I will create a playlist so I can organize them into a specific order.

I believe we have officially hijacked this thread.

Well, this is just a means to explain why CoverFlow is important enough to warrant buying a new iPod - or at least waiting until one is released that supports CoverFlow.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

8 GB is useless for an iPod IMHO. Also, the iPhone is limited to the US until the end of this year at the earliest. As I said before, those of us in remote areas of the world won't see the iPhone for a very long time. Apple should move quickly to offer it's next generation iPod worldwide. I'd buy an iPod tomorrow if it were available.

Well since its not out till July, I suspect a Holiday release is the earliest will see it.

[Salty]

My guess would be a september release.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Salty 

My guess would be a september 2008 release.

It's all about the iPhone for now.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

8 GB is useless for an iPod IMHO. Also, the iPhone is limited to the US until the end of this year at the earliest. As I said before, those of us in remote areas of the world won't see the iPhone for a very long time. Apple should move quickly to offer it's next generation iPod worldwide. I'd buy an iPod tomorrow if it were available.

Oh? Is that so? Sales of the Shuffle, Mini, and Nano say otherwise. Most people don`t have that much music, except us super nerds. I lived off my 10 Gig iPod until the 5G models came out. The iPhone will be fine for space, and will probably get rather frequent upgrades as well. If for no other reason then to justify the high price and to keep it in the news.

[Buckaroo]

[Sub]

Oh, that is great!

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by analogika 

It's all that's keeping me waiting for the next generation.

The second CoverFlow was released by SteelSkies software two years ago, I desperately wanted it on the iPod.

Check out the new fullscreen CoverFlow in iTunes 7.1.