Forget the iPhone. Just give us a new widescreen video iPod.

I'm selling my iPod. I want more. (I'll use my iPod mini for the time being.)

However, I don't want the current iPhone. It's moot anyway, since I'm not in the US (and don't want a 2-year contract either).

I wish Apple would release a widescreen video iPod already. It's been a long time coming. It'd be cool with the WiFi and PDA-like features utilizing a touch screen, but not a requirement, especially if I could get one for US$249.

And don't tell me the iPhone IS the widescreen video iPod, cuz it isn't. Not when it costs $600 or 8 GB anyway.

Here's hoping for an August release. BTW, it's been 39 weeks since the last significant iPod update.

Releasing a device competitive to the iPhone would be risky for Apple, as it may slow their sales of the phone.

But how could they go any other way? the iPhone breaks the mold for personal device. It makes everything else, including the iPods seem archaic. IMO, the widescreen form-factor, while great for movies, is all about the user-interface.

The movies are an added bonus, but I would never buy a widescreen iPod-video unless it had WiFi and e-mail. I might have before I'd heard of the iPhone, but not now. And I haven't even seen one yet!

I'm really excited to see what Apple is working on during the next 6 months to a year, and I wish they would hurry up.

Steve Jobs recently has said two things that allows me to think it's coming. First he said they were working on OS X iPods. Second he said that he'd rather it be another Apple product taking sales away from another Apple product.

A widescreen iPod would not cannibalize iPhone sales.

The iPhone is a $500-$600 dollar convergence device aimed at that person who already has a smartphone/PDA and an iPod. It's designed to allow you to connect with friends, colleagues, etc, while providing some media entertainment as well.

A true widescreen iPod (i.e. iPhone - phone - internet + hard drive) would be a $300-$400 chiefly multimedia device, aimed at people who want a device for music and media explicitly. The iPhone is not a serious music device - it can't hold most people's music collection (especially if you want to store movies and e-mail on there as well), and requires another several hundred dollars for a service plan.

Most iPod owners (especially in the high school and college demographics, where iPod ownership is at saturation levels) don't have a real need for the phone and internet features. Sure, they'd all like an iPhone, but most of them won't splurge for it.

A true widescreen iPod is the logical next step, especially given the iPhone's rather meager storage capacity. Also, Steve tantalizingly mentioned that the OS X team is developing OS X for "some iPods we're working on" in the internal SteveNote on Thursday. I'll be surprised if there isn't one by holiday shopping season. Bring it on, I say!

I would just like the exact same form factor and features except without the phone.

So :- iPod, Wireless Internet (via WiFi), Calendar, Email (Via WiFi), Google Maps (Via WiFi), etc, etc.

Just remove the phone bit, it will save battery power, and perhaps leave enough space for an 80GB drive.

Ian

I'm thinking theyll make something which makes you want both the iphone and the ipod haha. They wont simply have the same as the iphone but with no phone, because that would be completely pointless. Okay wifi is okay but what is the point on an mp3 player? Unless theyre going to step it up a bit so you can download music off itunes or whatever from it. camera not needed either.

I'm all for a widescreen iPod though!!

Yes. And I think there's a huge market for this, greater than the iPhone market. A full-featured iPod in a couple of large storage capacities with some Wi-Fi handheld datebook/computer features. 8 GB is actually plenty for a lot of people's music, but when you throw movies and television programs in there even the modest music collector needs 20 GB to comfortably what they want.

Someone mentioned cannibalizing iPhone sales. Sure you wouldn't want to release these two devices the same month, but otherwise, you already have a lot of people in phone contracts with other carriers who will never pay $200 to cancel their contract -- or keep paying the old phone contract -- to buy an iPhone. You could sell them that iPod, but by the time their phone contracts expires the iPhone hype will have died down enough they probably won't run out and buy an iPhone even if they wanted one in the first place; they'll consider all options, once of which will to be contract-free, which is a nice feeling.

You also have a large group who will tie a *phone* to a single carrier on a contract, but not an entire iPod and mobile computer and all its features to maintenance of that contract. A $500 or $600 multi-function device that gets bricked if you legitimately cancel the phone service? Please.

And then there are people who will buy every new model of iPod but choose not to carry a mobile phone, or because they have children or other responsibility to be in touch in emergencies only they'll carry the cheapest possible phone on a rock-bottom rate plan.

Finally, convergence is not all it's cracked up to be, and it's sort of founded on a false concept. Convergence seems to be based on the idea, I used to never have to carry all this stuff around, now I have to carry an iPod, a phone, a mobile computer or datebook, maybe a laptop for more robust work; I want to go back to carrying maybe one device that meets all my contemporary needs. Go back? When did we carry one thing? Ever look in a woman's purse? Photographers carry many pounds of equipment. Artists, complete kits. Even writers, notebooks, reference books, tape recorders, pens, perhaps a portable typewriter then, a laptop now. We've always towed around a dozen bits. What's wrong with carrying several things that each of them do one or two things well? From what I've read and seen the iPhone is a great iPod, a very nice handheld computer with a great interface, and a so-so phone. How much you want bet you're going to see a bunch of iPhone owners carrying around their large capacity iPods to have access to more music, their Mac laptops to have full-fledged computers *and* their iPhones. You haven't converged anything, you've just replaced your existing mobile phone. Convergence is a myth. Humans drag around junk. I think we we like to. I think we like to pick and choose between what we think is best or most suitable and haul that around with us along without our other favorites.

I'm not really into mobile phones, but carry one because of our kids. I'd gladly carry a small phone that makes phone calls well and about which I have service choice, a great full capacity iPod, and an Apple mobile (Wi-Fi based) Internet device/handheld computer, all separate, if I need those things. Sure you could combine the iPod and the mobile computer, but I wouldn't insist on it. Frankly, I think a full-featured iPod and a full-featured MacBook is a better deal than an iPhone, as you aren't making concessions on either device. Really, how big is a MacBook if you really need a mobile computer? There's a niche that needs mobile e-mail, certainly. But *need*, that's a small niche. Certainly nobody *needs* pocket YouTube. Cute, but hardly necessary, especially if you have an iPod full of movies and TV shows -- and on the iPod you can even output those to a TV. The iPhone screen may beat the video iPod screen by a bit, but my PSP screen beats them all and I wouldn't want to a movie on it. These things are too small for watching movies. There are just some things about humans that will not change because of our physiology and one of these is being able to watch a film on a large enough screen to enjoy it.

So if I know all this I'm sure Apple knows all this. They'll soon release an iPod with a lot of the iPhone features for people who don't want an iPhone or the concessions, like contracts, for which it asks. You'll have iPod owners and iPhone owners, and gadget junkies who own both. Sales on both devices will be good or great.

Source?

I'm betting that if there is an OS X iPod in the works, we won't see it for at least a year.

If they do make the next iPod an iPhone without the phone, a good option would be something like a Blueye bluetooth remote - Link. Not sure if this would need a new version or firmware update to work with an OS X iPod, but it should be possible to make something like it work.

Doubtful IMO.

A wide-screen, touch-screen iPod (i.e. iPhone without the "phone") will likely NOT have wireless internet, calendar, email, Google maps, etc. Expect the same or similar form factor as the iPhone with just the iPod functionality and larger hard drives. There's no reason for an iPod to have email, Safari, Google Maps, etc. and such a device would cannibalize iPhone sales too much.

I agree Mrjingles. Apple has a very clear definition of what the iPod is and isn't. It's an AV player. The iPhone also defines it narrowly as such, and that's just not going to change.

Yeah, I agree that a new widescreen iPod wouldn't necessarily have WiFi or Safari. It'd be nice, but it'd be a definite added cost for that, and probably too difficult to make for maximum profit $249-299 (esp. with the state of the US dollar these days).

I don't know how it'd be controlled though. Would it still require that touch screen? If it did, then I'd like to see expanded Address Book and iCal functionality. That, with 30-40 GB, would be the perfect iPod for me.

Yeah...that would be a tricky marketing plan. I don't want an iPhone. I need a business phone. OTOH, I do need a music player and video device, and it it were also a PDA with wifi capability, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

I suspect, however, that that will be a while in coming. At least until they're done rolling out the iPhone worldwide. Such an expanded-capability iPod with wifi would certainly cannabalize iPhone sales. OTOH, it definitely would also open a big market segment - those who can't or won't get involved with AT&T. And in the US, that is a BIG market segment.

One point that hasn't been made here is the fact that a new iPod will immediately be available worldwide whereas it's going to take YEARS for the iPhone to be available everywhere. Here in the Caribbean we probably won't see the iPhone until 2009 if we're lucky. I think the iPhone and iPod are distinct enough products as to not cannibalize each others sales.

I certainly hope we get a new iPhone-like iPod by the end of the year!

August/September would be perfect timing for a new iPod. The current iPod is already 39 weeks old, and a new iPod soon would capture the back-to-school crowd.

Sure, some iPhone sales would be lost, but the market for an under $300 iPod way larger than a $600 iPhone crippled (in some ways) with regards with iPod features.

Furthermore, an August/September release would give Apple/AT&T ample time to lock a whole bunch of people down to AT&T's 2-year contracts. I suspect if Apple's manufacturing is in full swing, there will be enough iPhones sold by the end of July to satisfy the initial pent up demand.


Good point. Rogers in Canada has stated that they have not moved very far in terms of iPhone negotiations with Apple. Thus, we KNOW it will be a very long time before we get it here. BTW, one interesting thing to note is that Rogers has a big push for UMTS and HSPDA right now. The iPhone has neither, and I'm not sure how much they want to upgrade EDGE, considering that they are already rolling out its replacement. However, even if they're perfectly happy to further upgrade their EDGE service dramatically (in terms of data speeds), that's besides the point. As you said, it will be some time before the iPhone comes here (in whatever form it may be, whether it'd be 2.5G EDGE or 3G UMTS/HSPDA), whereas a new iPod would be worldwide immediately. HUGE HUGE MARKET, esp. at the <$300 price point.

I think an iPhone-like iPod would do all the current iPod stuff and the iPhone stuff -- multi-touch interface, larger screen, cover-flow, photo viewing features, etc. -- with the iPhone's calendar and address book or very similar, with much higher capacity storage but with no camera and no Internet or network features at all whatsoever. That I could see by autumn, and that would be a clear line between product categories. iPhone = communication; iPod = no communication. Pick your preference or buy both if you need both.

I think you're referring to the reports that you can't use the iPhone even as an iPod without activating it first, but I don't think we have any indication that the device will be useless if you cancel later on.

I think that if Apple releases a carrier-free iPhone, people could activate it worldwide, including the Caribbean. Although, I dunno how carriers down here would handle the data plans and all that. Here in Dominican Republic, data plans suck!

So what is an OS X iPod going to do that a regular iPod doesn't? It's bound to have a few iPhone like features.

So what happens if you remove the SIM card and turn it on?

-

As far as I know it has to have installed an active SIM card on AT&T service -- meaning one that is acknowledged as having active service by the AT&T network -- or nothing works. With other phones, for example most Nokia phones, they must have a SIM card installed to access the other features of the phone, but the SIM card need not be active on any network.

My wife had a couple of Nokia phones that took a few hours to activate, but she could use the camera, address book, calendar, etc., with the inactive SIM card. So it follows that if you have to activate the SIM card to get the other features of the iPhone working, and you have to have an *active* SIM card installed to keep them working, if you terminate service at the end of the contract, the iPhone locks up again. Basically, if it's not acknowledged as an active service phone by the AT&T network it won't work, and if you terminate service, AT&T deactivates the SIM via their network and the iPhone locks again. It's even possible, though I have no proof of this, that if the iPhone can't register with the AT&T network for an extended period of time, it may lock. That I do doubt. It probably won't lock again until service is terminated and AT&T deactivates the SIM card.

I think it will have *a lot* of iPhone-like features, just no communications features -- that is, no Wi-Fi, no Safari, no e-mail.

You can open your window on a windy day and set the iPhone on top of a stack of papers so they won't blow away.

Seriously, it won't work, none of it. But that's not unusual. Every Nokia phone I've ever seen, none of the features will work without a SIM card installed. If you turn them on with no SIM card there's a message telling you to install a SIM card and then they turn off again a few seconds later. The unusual thing is that the SIM card has to be active on the iPhone, not just physically there, for any of the non-phone features to work. It's a total lock-down and I don't expect that to change. Enough public outcry at the end of the service contracts might get AT&T to stop re-locking the phone if you terminate your service plan -- or if buy out with the cancellation fee and terminate service early. But right now five will you get you ten AT&T has every intent of re-locking the iPhone if you cancel service even at the end of the contract. This isn't a matter of making you serve out your contract so they make the money they expected when they subsidized the phone purchase. They didn't subsidize the phone purchase; you paid for in total, you just can't use it without their permission.

At any rate, they certainly *can* re-lock anytime they wish, and I'm sure that if they see it as a way to keep people on service plans off contract after the two-year initial agreement, they will happily tell you when you call to cancel service after your contract expires because you're switching carriers, want a phone from another carrier, have given up on the mobile always-on lifestyle, what have you, they'll gladly tell you that of course you realize that when you cancel your service plan your iPhone will no longer work.

Except maybe the phone application. I'm supposing that if buy your phone, pull it out of the box and turn it on without activating it, the phone application will work, right? Because if they're selling phones with SIM cards installed that will hit their network and they don't allow 911 calls without at least starting the activation process, they're in violation of FCC regulations. Any phone that can hit a network has to allow 911 calls, regardless of whether it's activated or has an active service plan.

I think the iPhone is in general, despite its flaws, the cat's pajamas in mobile technology. Of course I think my MacBook is the cat's PJs in laptops, but if Apple could reach out anytime they wished and for any reason lock it up so I couldn't use any of its features, I wouldn't have bought it. Likewise my iPod. I'd really like to have an iPhone just because it is so undeniably cool in many ways, but when I buy something I'd like to own it and use it as I please without having a mobile service carrier, of all corporations, tell me what I can and cannot do with it beyond their phone/data network. We're giving up too many of our basic free-market rights to the policies of corporations to whom we are *customers* and *clients* -- our money keeps them in business.

I just tried taking out my SIM card and everything works -- Internet over wifi, iPod, maps. All of the features but the phone of course. As long as the device has been activated once, it should work from then on even if you cancel your service. Thanks for the misinformation, though. :rolleyes:

The current full size iPod is actually coming up on two years old now. The last update, in September 2006, really only had a brighter screen, longer battery life, and games iirc. That is why most people call it the 5.5 generation.

I am guessing Apple is currently using the back to school special, which ends September 16th, to clear up old iPod inventory and to promote Mac sales.

Then, when it is done, they will release a new full size iPod in time for Christmas.

As to the design, my call is for a hard drive based, widescreen, touchscreen iPod.... with no more functionality than it currently has.

i.e. It will have the GUI and relative form factor of the iPhone, but only the same features (music, photos, video, syncing of iCal and Contacts, and notes) as the current iPods do.

This will keep it distinct from the iPhone crowd, and still offer the same form factor and GUI to the people who want more than 8GB and who don't want a monthly plan.

My 5G video iPod is now sold. Come on Apple... I definitely need a new video iPod now. :p

The longer battery life applied to the 5G as well. I managed to get 8 hours out of my 30 GB 5G iPod, after a firmware update (when the 5.5G came out). Games worked too.

Oh, I didn't realize there was that sale. I totally forgot.

OK, so that means a new iPod before Sept. 16 is less likely (although not impossible). However, I'd be happy enough if a new one came out late Sept. in time for Apple expo 2007. :)


Well, I could see it getting Cover Flow, even without a touch screen.

I would like it to have Wifi but I get the feeling it will just be touchscreen iPod only with coverflow, more storage, thicker with a hard drive. 30 Gigs of RAM would be nice though.

If there is no WiFi, the touchscreen becomes less justifiable. OTOH, how do you make a big widescreen video iPod in a nice form factor without a touchscreen? It'd probably be hard, and judging by their patents (and the existence of the iPhone), they may indeed go with a touchscreen.

And if they go with a touchscreen, maybe it makes sense to throw Safari and Google Maps in there. (iCal and AddressBook are givens.) TV out would be nice too. The chipset of the iPhone supports that FWIW (even though the iPhone doesn't have this feature).

Now, what about cost? Can they make a 40 GB iPod with touchscreen and WiFi for $299?

Ok so 10x the storage than the iPhone and 90% of the features minus calls for half the price?

You're going to be without an iPod for a while dude.

Unfortunately if the composite jack doesn't have a lead for video, a software update won't fix the lack of TV video out.

Based on Steve's comments from last week's internal Apple Stevenote, I think we can reasonably assume that the next iPod will be a touchscreen, OSX-based device. Why?

• Apple is working on OSX-based iPods
• Steve thinks multi-touch is the best thing since sliced bread (okay, since the original Mac)
• Apple refers to the iPhone as the best iPod they've ever built. It would be rather silly if the next flagship iPod they released didn't at least match the iPod functionality of the iPhone.

I think mostly everyone can agree on that; the gray area is how Apple will differentiate the iPod from the iPhone.

The easiest, and most cost-effective option for Apple would be to keep the iPod strictly to music/video playing capabilities, and match all the existing extras the iPod currently has (contacts, photo viewing, maybe even games). They'd have a winner right there and people would buy it in droves.

However, being based off of OSX and multi-touch, they do have another, more competitive option: add wi-fi. With that, it becomes a much more rich multimedia device.

They could choose to only make certain widgets available, like Weather, YouTube, etc., but not the Mail and Safari capabilities. That would still keep the iPhone in a distinct category of its own.

Or, they could even go so far as to add Mail and Safari to the new iPod, and put it seriously a few years ahead of the competition. It would make all other portable media players (i.e.: Zune) look like 8-tracks.

Once you have Wifi, all of that is easy to add because the software has already been developed for the iPhone. The problem with that is, do you cut into the majority of the iPhone's potential market, especially abroad, by giving them nearly the whole experience? Steve does regard the iPhone as important to their future success as Macs and the iPod line are presently. I'm sure Apple is struggling with that question right now, if it hasn't already.

Personally, I think they can afford to wait to add wifi capabilites to the iPod. They own the market as it is, and will continue to do so with a touch-screen iPod. If competitors step up to the plate with better media players, the wifi iPod would be an easy transition to make for them.

I did some checking and you're right! You'll have to pardon that I didn't just take the word of someone who just signed a two-year contract and paid a service set-up fee just so they'd allow you to use a device for which you paid full price. They should try this deal with Macs. Two-year .mac contract with $35 set-up to unlock your new $2,500 PowerBook for which in consideration of your signing a two-year .mac subscription you'll only pay for the PowerBook... $2,500. But you can cancel the .mac contract any time by paying a $175 cancellation fee to cover the cost of the break they gave you on the PowerBook. Oh, wait, but they didn't give you a break on the PowerBook.

Next up are TVs, cars, heck, even houses. Service commitments without price breaks. Fabulous. It's a whole new business model: gouging.

Unfortunately, while I was confirming your report I discovered that current AT&T customers who *pay full price* for a new iPhone, even if they are no longer in a contract or only have a fraction of their contract to go, they get slammed with another two years of contract for *nothing*. Absolutely no reason.

Face it, you're being taken for a ride. We wonder why Americans can't stand up to our health plan providers and demand full care at affordable rates. Heck, we can't even stand up to a cellular provider over unreasonable policies because we're so entranced by a *phone* that lets you *move fake things* by *touching* them.

And don't give me, The iPhone is just not for you if you don't accept these terms. The iPhone is not for you, either, because the more people who accept this kind of closed-market monopolization -- capitalists my eye -- the more those of us sharp enough to stay away from such foolishness are faced with attempts to entrap us for goods and services we do actually need.

Unlike some people, I actually look into things before writing baseless multi-paragraph rants. :stick:

Actually, I did look into it and had read in at least two places that the phone was re-locked without service. Obviously, my sources were wrong; I verified that and admitted it.

This makes you no less foolish for signing a contract for which you receive no consideration. Mobile phone contracts are based on subsidizing the retail cost of the phone hardware. There is no subsidy on the iPhone. If you didn't *look into* the concept of consideration for both parties in contracts and realize you were being hoodwinked by marketing glitz, you are in no position to take a superior position in this debate.

What you don't realize, what a lot of people don't realize, is that this is not a harmless concession to get a product you want. This is the gateway to hell. This undermines free-market economies. Competition is essential to a free-market economy, and there is no competition here, not in carrier choice and not in choice to use a full-price multi-function device without enabling a single feature. Monopolization of markets puts corporations in the same positions as totalitarian governments. This is not a good thing. I get requiring contracts when they give you something. You're agreeing to keep their service for 24 months in exchange for a steep discount on the retail price of equipment. But without that discount you've got nothing but an agreement to be imprisoned by a single service provider with little incentive to maintain customer-friendly policies because you're in a contract, and you have to take a bath in cancellation fees to get out and you're stuck with a device that although you may be able to use in other ways you can't use with a competitor's service *in any form*. Forget Visual Voicemail or whatever, it should otherwise work with competitor's SIM cards and they've designed it so it won't, for no good reason but so that it won't. If they were leasing you the phone, that would be yet another thing, but you're buying it outright and have the right to do with it what you wish.

It's doubtful this will ever be tested in court, but I'm not even sure this contract is strictly legal without consideration for the iPhone buyer. They would probably use "advantageous rate plan" as the consideration and get through on a gray area. Unfortunately, they won't even let you use a pay-as-you-go plan unless you're denied credit without deposit. That would certainly make me feel more comfortable, as you could pay higher rates but have the option of terminating service without paying a fee to do so, should you be unhappy with the product or service. Maybe I should skip four or five mortgage payments and see if I can put myself in a position to get a better deal.

icruise, I know you love your iPhone. I think the thing is pretty darn keen myself. I'm not laughing at you for buying one. But I think it's unreasonable the way you and all iPhone buyers have been arm-twisted into contracts -- even existing AT&T customers. It's not at all unreasonable for me to question the wisdom of your entering into a two-year contract for a service you pay monthly -- and can be swiftly terminated if you fail to pay -- when you are not receiving fair consideration in return. They are playing on your passion for the product in order to pull you into an inequitable financial arrangement, and that is highly unethical.

p.s. Some of our conflict of opinion may come from a generation gap. I don't know how old you are, but unless you're close to my age, you didn't grow up when Ma Bell was the devil and people were put to all sorts of hell in dealing with their monopoly service. This country spent a pretty penny breaking them up so there would be at least some competition in communications services and AT&T has ever since been systemically putting the pieces of the monster back together; and now they're starting to act like the monster, too. That reasonably concerns me.

Well, considering that the current iPod already currently has 30 GB with iCal, AddressBook, games, and superior music support for $249, I don't think adding a touchscreen with WiFi, Safari, and Google Maps for $299-$349 is out of the question.

Remember, the Zune has WiFi and an FM tuner, and only costs $249.

P.S. A WiFi-enabled iPod with touchscreen could double as a remote control for Airport Express.

I really think that Apple is going to want the iPhone to be special for a while longer, at least. Even if it were possible to make the next iPod an iPhone minus the phone features, I'm not sure it would make sense for them to do so. They have a lot riding on the iPhone's success. You can argue that they are very different devices and will often be purchased by different people, but I still think that you can't have people paying several hundred dollars more for an iPhone if the iPod has all of the same features plus 10x the storage.

My prediction is that the new iPods will either be scroll wheel models, or will have the touch screen but no additional features beyond what iPods already do (in other words, they'd probably have a version of the iPhone's contacts app, but not safari, etc).

it is kind of surprising no such thing exists yet (wide screen ipod). There are pretty good players from Archos and Creative, not to mention Zune, so there must be market for it.
If that thing had, as mentioned earlier integrated wifi, and also sync to apple TV then it would be a notch above anything else seen so far...

Wow, icruise and I agree on something: the next true generational change of iPods will very likely include the multi-touch interface -- what this will do to the current iPod games, I don't know; I don't even know if these are big sellers -- the wide screen, all the usual video iPod features, like TV out and more storage, and all the peripheral features it shares with iPhone, like calendar and contacts -- probably upgraded to iPhone-like versions -- but no wireless communications features at all whatsoever. Wi-Fi encroaches on the iPhone and Bluetooth is not efficient for sync'ing many large files -- not that the iPhone will even sync over Bluetooth, and I think wireless Bluetooth stereo headphones are just flat not good enough for a dedicated A/V device. Without communications features, that leaves a distinct line between product categories. Also, if you have an iPod with communications, you basically have a non-phone Palm, and perhaps wind up with a device that rather than focus on doing one thing very well, suffers from feature glut -- without the "it's a phone, too" hook. I don't think this presents a problem for iPod sales over the iPhone. There are lots of people who want to or need to regularly make and receive phone calls, access e-mail and the Internet on the go. Then there are a fair number of people who want nothing to do with mobile phones, or even more who keep a mobile to use only in a pinch or for emergency contact; and the last thing they want is to check e-mail or browse the Web when they are by locational enforcement away from its distractions.

The iPhone as a device is an excellent choice for the constant-contact crowd, of which there are many. But there will always be people whose lifestyles or professions depend on eluding as best they can immediate contact or constant information overload from Internet access.

As for why there's no wide-screen iPod already, I think it will turn up in the next generation, but how important is it, really? I don't watch movies on my video iPod screen, but a larger wide screen is not going to change that. I have a Sony PSP with a large, wide, outstanding screen and I don't watch movies on that, either. Watching anything on these devices is really more suited to children who are carted around and have no choice, or don't have first choice in what is viewed at home, or commuters who don't have to interact with their method of transit -- meaning, they're on a train or plane, not driving. If you're at home, you're going to watch video on a large TV, possibly connected to a good audio system. Why wouldn't you? I think that's why the launch and chief success of iTunes video was TV programming; it's shorter, suited to the 4:3 screen ratio of the iPod, and for those who don't read or prefer to listen to music or what have you, during a day's commute they can probably watch a full drama program. But these same people at home, I can't imagine they don't plug their iPods into a television set to watch content from it.

I think Apple can include WiFi on the next iPod, but still keep a feature set distinct from the iPhone. For one, they wouldn't have to include Mail or Safari. But they could instead focus on being able to automatically download new podcasts or video podcasts on the go. Or perhaps being able to stream a show or movie to a friend's tv when you're over at their place, much like you can with a MacBook now. Perhaps even some widgets for basic info retrieval like weather or stocks.

I think it's important in order to satisfy those who are waiting to upgrade their iPods, but don't want an iPhone. If the media playback experience on the next iPod isn't as good as the current iPhone, people will not upgrade and will either look to competitors or wait for the next revision. Apple bested themselves with the iPod application on the iPhone, so if they don't deliver at least something that good on the next gen iPod, they're not going to see strong demand for it.

My iPod predicions:

I think the next iPod will have a very similar form factor to the iPhone, same size screen but probably losing the top/bottom that contains the earpiece and "home" button. It will have all the functionality of the "iPod" part of the iPhone (touch interface, coverflow), and it will contain the iPhone's implementation of photos, but nothing else. No wifi, no Safari/email/internet widgets/etc...that's just too close to iPhone territory. Hopefully a 100 gig model will be available but I wouldn't be surprised if it was 40/80.

I imagine they will keep a 30gig scrollwheel iPod at $250 and sell this new guy for $350-$450, and then eventually drop the 30gig scrollwheel leaving just the touch iPods at the current price points. Similar to what they did with the iPod Photo.

I guess I'm one of the few people that would be very nervous having a $500 - $600 iPhone in my pocket during about a thousand situations.

No, you're not the only one. But it's kind of the nature of the beast. A lot of people carry around a lot of expensive mobile technology. A lot of people break it, lose it or get it stolen. I'd think drinking and iPhoning do not mix. Seems like a couple drinks or so would be enough to make you haphazard enough to forget it on the bar when you leave. I know plenty of people who will do this cold sober.

It's a cost/benefit trade-off. I almost bought one Saturday. Went so far as to make sure my Apple Store had them in stock and had my credit pre-authorized through AT&T. But then I said, What am I doing? I'm going to pay $500 or $600 for this. Plus at least $80 a month for 24 months. I already have a video iPod. I already have an outstanding Canon camera. I don't want a mobile phone -- the one I have is for limited convenience and emergency contact only; 20 minutes use is a big month for me. The last thing I want to do is get e-mail while I'm out, let alone try to answer it. I don't want slow Internet access on the go. If I have need of Internet access via Wi-Fi while out or away -- this happens perhaps twice a year -- I'm going to take my Mac.

However it shore is purdy, and I must confess I came *very* close to spending $600 for all that glitz. It's not even that I don't think the device merits the price tag. It's probably priced about right considering the technology in it. It's what of the other things I like that $600 would buy: books, music, games, movies. Instead spent on something amazingly cool but amazingly devoid of any features I want, need or don't already have.

But, no, you're not the only one who has practical exceptions to the wisdom of buying an iPhone.

I do. Perfect for the plane and short trips. I don't like bringing my laptop with me on vacation.

The only issue I see is that there isn't any improvement on the iPhone in terms of video support compared to the iPod, so it would seem that a new widescreen iPod wouldn't get any video improvements either.

Both support 640x480 H.264 1.5 Mbps Baseline Low Complexity profile, which unfortunately leaves a little something to be desired when you watch it on anything other than an iPod.

It'd be nice to get an iPod that supported 640x480 H.264 1.5 Mbps Main profile, but I don't expect to see one of those for quite some time. Even 640x480 H.264 1.5 Mbps Baseline profile (not LC) would be nice, but Apple may be reluctant to do that for the sake of cross-compatibility of files with previous models.

If all I want it for is music, a nano or mini is OK. In fact, a mini is what I use in the gym. (A shuffle is a nice form factor for the gym, but sometimes I prefer having a screen and a bit more storage even in the gym, depending on the situation.)

Well, clearly, you're not in the target market for the iPhone, which says something since you were still considering getting one.

I'm not a heavy phone user, but I use well over 200 minutes a month, and this month it's gonna be closer to 350 minutes.

Planes and short trips. So you're the perfect market for actually watching video on the iPod. Which is of course completely reasonable. Planes and trains, I read. As for cars, I have a seizure disorder that... well, it's complicated, but some of the seizures are triggered by disequilibrium. I feel them coming because it feels like vertigo. Planes, no problem. Trains no problem, my doctor and I think because the motion is mostly consistent and not as directly conveyed as in an automobile -- except for swaying but swaying besides being uncomfortable doesn't trigger them. So, anyway, all I can do in cars, which I avoid, is listen to music and stare straight out the window and hope I don't lose my sense of balance.

I don't haul my Mac laptop around much, either. But if I absolutely must do any sort of work away from home -- which really never happens -- I do have to take it because of what I do. I don't watch movies on it, either, though.

But I digress. As far as the video iPod at home, composite video output to an SDTV looks fine at 640x480 and our HDTV has some sort of magical upscaler/enhancer -- seriously, it's an incredible thing -- that makes iPod videos play in full screen from component on our Apple TV or composite from my video iPod at a quality that is only distinguishable from DVD in a side-by-side sort of comparison. Of course lots of HDTVs have terrible handling of SD signals and the results are pretty bad.

That I don't want a phone and was considering an iPhone does say something: Apple sold its soul for marketing prowess in promoting cool products. That's what it says. It's an undeniable that to see or use an iPhone makes you want one even if you have no use for it.

I can guarantee you that Apple won't include wifi on the next iPod.

First off, adding WiFi would boost cost and complexity. Secondly, it doesn't really add any useful functionality. It doesn't make sense.

Wireless syncing seems like more trouble than it's worth - you'd have to create an ad-hoc network on your Mac/PC, and then get the iPod to recognize and join that network. Still easier to just plug in a cable.

Downloading content on the go would be circumventing the model of iTunes as content aggregator and manager, and iPod as storage/playback device. Not even the iPhone can download iTunes content on the go. Apple wants it so that content must always flow from iTunes to the iPod, not the other way around.

As for streaming to other iPods/Apple TV's, that's a legal nightmare. Getting around the legal problems would probably lead to a heavily DRMed solution that no-one wants (remember the Zune's "squirting"?) - and Apple has enough problems with record labels already (i.e. Universal's refusal to renew their contract for the iTMS, Apple's campaign to convince the labels to go DRM-free).

Widgets on the iPod? Why? It's a multi-media device, not a connectivity device. I don't think anyone wants more PDA-like bloat on the iPod. Especially if it only works in a Wi-Fi hotspot. Also, it encroaches on the iPhone's territory.

Adding WiFi to the iPod adds complexity, increases cost, doesn't feasibly add functionality that people want, and blurs the line between the iPhone and the iPod.

If you're right and I'm wrong, however, and Apple does end up doing it, come up to Portland and I'll buy you a drink. ;)

Agreed (since I didn't even suggest it ;) ). Wireless syncing is rather pointless, as you still have to charge the device at some point. If you're going to be plugging it in to charge the device, might as well sync at the same time too. Wireless syncing can also be interrupted at any point for a variety of reasons not applicable to a docked device.

Yes, and no. Do note I only mentioned podcasts, not total access to the iTunes Store. Essentially the model remains the same because you'd still have to subscribe to those podcasts in iTunes. The iPod would simply be able to check for updates to those podcasts, and download them if necessary.

I think persistent wireless connections will be commonplace enough in a few years that Apple could push the idea that podcasts will become essentially on-demand radio.

Apple may want a constant iTunes -> iPod connection for the time being, but more and more competitors will try to jump on the apparent lack of on-the-fly wireless content download. Time will tell if that's what the market wants. Unfortunately, in many cases, the market doesn't want it until Apple does it right.

The studios seem just fine with people streaming movies from iTunes on a guest computer to appleTVs, so I'm not sure what the big deal would be. Regardless, I assure you it's not a feature I'm dying for, just a potential use for WiFi on an iPod. I doubt many people would actually use such a capability on a frequent basis.

By that line of reasoning, we shouldn't have contacts, calendars and notes on the iPod. Widgets would be value-adds, just like the "PDA-like bloatware" that already exist on the iPod.

Weather, Movie Times, and Sports Scores would be the types of Widgets more applicable to an iPod, in my view.

In terms of wireless connectivity (and besides the phone) the two big apps on the iPhone are Mail and Safari. By not including those two apps on a supposed WiFi iPod, you already clearly draw a line in the sand as to what sort of markets each device caters to. And you can still get away with making the iPod do some interesting things that its competitors might not.

Looking forward to it ;)

BTW, you post was like a good essay. You state your case, you follow it up with proof and then you state your case again and conclude it. Good work. :thumbsup:

It doesn't seem likely to me that Apple would go with a halfway solution like "yeah, you can download iTunes content from the iPod, but only the podcasts." Furthermore, how would iTunes distinguish from songs/podcasts downloaded legitimately (and thus should be imported from the iPod to the library) and songs you stuck on it at your friend's house? Any content flow from the iPod to iTunes makes piracy easier (yes, I'm aware that there are third party apps and Terminal tricks (god bless defaults write com.Apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles true!) to get around this, but the average user can't be bothered).

If the podcasts were only kept on the iPod until listened to, and then deleted, that would solve the sync issues. However, this would be most useful useful at home (wireless networks are still too spotty, unless you live in a city with city-wide WiFi, to use on the go), yet most people use their iPods when commuting, exercising, or otherwise moving.

Again, I think this poses a problem in distinguishing between files that were downloaded from iTunes on the go, and songs you might have put on there whilst over at your friends - especially of some of the other labels besides EMI go DRM-free on iTunes.

I also don't think enough of the market wants this feature - personally I have no use for this feature, but I 1) am a poor college student, and don't frequently buy music, and 2) when I do, I usually buy CD's - but you're right, Apple is usually ahead of the curve, and frequently creates demand for certain features.

This might be a feature that Apple would want to implement exclusively on the iPhone. Why? Because if you have the cash for a $500 iPhone and service plan, you're more likely to have the financial levity to buy songs as an impulse purchase. The teenage market, where the iPod first began to take off (most of my friends had 3rd generation iPods, while most of their parents didn't pick one up till it hit 4th generation or later), is less likely to use this. Granted, I have no idea how large a slice of the current iPod user-base teenagers make up.

But in that case, content is still going from iTunes to a playback device. Going from playback device to playback device is different. It'd be much easier, and practically identical in the end-result, just to add a video-out to the iPod. Also, the iPhone uses only 802.11b/g wireless, which, from what I've heard, is not sufficiently speedy for streaming video - you'd need 802.11n for that. I can't imagine an iPod would have a faster wireless connection than the iPhone.

We shouldn't. Not anymore, at least. Now that should be strictly the iPhone's domain. Those features were added before Apple had the iPhone on the market, but now, PDA functionality seems to make much more sense on the iPhone. Besides, how many people actually used those? The iPhone and PDA/Smartphone markets overlap a lot more than the iPod and PDA markets do. I used to use notes to read books on the go, but then I switched over to using iPodLinux, because the iPod's native firmware can only handle miniscule notes.

If they include wireless, how long before iPodLinux comes out with a browser that takes advantage of it? With a browser, you've got some e-mail functionality with web-based services, and suddenly the line becomes much fuzzier. Granted, installing iPodLinux is a process I'm sure most iPod owners won't be bothered to do, but I think plenty of the iPhone's target market (gadget-obsessed geeks) would be quite comfortable doing so, and quite satisfied with a $250-$350 wireless internet capable iPod than a $500-$600 iPhone.

My dad was a big forensics/debate guy in college (he placed in a couple of nationals), so I don't really have much of a choice :). I try to organize my thoughts coherently, since it makes it much easier for people to pay attention to me. People tend to skip a big ol' wall-of-text post. Thanks for the compliment, though. :)

Vertigociel,

"Furthermore, how would iTunes distinguish from songs/podcasts downloaded legitimately (and thus should be imported from the iPod to the library) and songs you stuck on it at your friend's house? Any content flow from the iPod to iTunes makes piracy easier (yes, I'm aware that there are third party apps and Terminal tricks (god bless defaults write com.Apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles true!) to get around this, but the average user can't be bothered)."

It already does. There's some multi-Mac sync'ing capability in iTunes/iPod now, as of the last few months, and if you have purchased iTunes Store products on your iPod that aren't in your iTunes library, it will ask if you want to copy them to your iTunes library on your Mac. If you answer yes, it does, if you answer no, it deletes them from the iPod. I don't dual-sync, but a few times I've bought some singles on iTunes and then run across the CD album on sale at a price a couple dollars less than iTunes for the whole album, bought the CD, ripped the CD to my iTunes library, then deleted the purchased iTunes single. So when I go to sync my iPod, there's purchased music on my iPod not in my library and it asks if I want to copy it over to my Mac. If it just looks for files of type "Protected AAC" on the iPod that are not on the Mac, I'm not sure it would work for podcasts, but it probably looks for some sort of other file tag as now there is unprotected iTunes Plus music on iTunes that isn't "Protected AAC". Presumably it would look for purchased iTunes Plus songs on the iPod but not on the Mac, too, and allow you to copy them to your Mac.

Don't think of it as random browsing and downloading of iTunes content. Think of it more as the iPod simply keeping your subscribed content up-to-date. That's all.

And as for the content migrating back to iTunes, well it wouldn't have to, really. Since it's a podcast, (free content to begin with), iTunes could simply detect the fact that the iPod updated some of its podcasts, and download the podcasts for itself over the internet. But really, I'm sure the very bright guys at Apple would be able to devise a secure method of storing which podcasts were downloaded wirelessly.

Right, people use them when on the move, but the iPod is still with them when they're not (say, at work, at a coffee shop, at school, etc.) That's when it can hop on an open network (or one you've configured it to recognize and log on to) and grab that content automagically.

Yes, wifi is spotty, but I'm quite sure that in any reasonably urban place, the density of open wifi networks is such that in the course of your day you will cross several of them. Remember, we're talking about deferred content here, not live streaming news.

The point isn't how many people use them, or if they use them, it's that those things are value-adds. They sweeten the deal.

Not including those features (which cost Apple almost nothing in terms of development time) would be downright shallow if the intent is to push the iPhone on people. If anything, every consecutive iPod has had more features than its predecessor. How well would it fare with consumers if a 6G iPod, with all its OSX touch-screen goodness, didn't include features that are so basic even the 1st gen iPod had them!

What next? They release software updates for all existing iPods that remove Contacts, Calendar, and Notes, simply because they encroach too much on the iPhone?

That's the risk they take. Hell, since it'd be based on OSX, and the hardware is similar enough, it wouldn't be out of the question that people would attempt migrate apps from the iPhone to the iPod. (Though probably very difficult, Apple has locked down the iPhone OS really well)

But quite honestly, the majority of people who purchase an iPod do so because of the user experience. Like you said yourself, resorting to iPodLinux is something the public at large does not care for.

I don't own a mobile phone. I don't want one. I'd buy a wide-screen iPod though.