More on New iPods September 3
TUAW illustrates what I’ve been thinking about the nano branding: the new nano isn’t an evolution of the old, it’s a new product category (or maybe an evolution of the shuffle). It’s different enough that keeping the same name leads to expectations of the product.
This is similar to what happened when the mini was retired and replaced by the nano, but not quite. In 2005, the nano was everything the mini was and more. Now, the old nano isn’t really being replaced by the new. Over its lifetime, the nano became more and more of a convergence device, and in the past year buyers apparently started thinking that a better convergence device — the iPod touch — was a better buy despite it not being “nano” sized. Thus, this year they’ve made it official that the iPod touch is what buyers who wanted something like last year’s nano should want.
Of course, that’s what Apple surely wants, too — the touch is the most expensive iPod, and probably the highest-margin one, too. (Then again, the $229 8GB model looks like a desperate attempt to claim a low price point in the face of high component costs, so margins might be lower on that one.) But I doubt that’ll matter: with last year’s touch outselling last year’s nano already, and the iOS platform in general skyrocketing in popularity, people who might have gone for last year’s nano will flock to the touch anyway.
Oh, and to address the TUAW post’s other complaint: I suspect the new touch’s anemic photo resolution won’t hold back a significant number of buyers. Three reasons:
- Touch customers are already people who don’t completely buy into the convergence-device bandwagon — they already keep their iPod and phone separate. And if they were on the old touch, they were already carrying around a separate camera anyway… they won’t mind keeping a little point-and-shoot or a DSLR around for better pictures, and for those times when they have only the iPod handy, any built-in camera is better than none.
- Touch customers are young, and kids these days seem more interested in uploading to YouTube than to Flickr. Who cares if the still pictures are “meh” if the video’s good? (Besides, if the iPod’s sensor is anywhere near as good as the iPhone 4′s, the pictures will come out a heck of a lot better than they would’ve from most other <1 megapixel cams.)
- The iPod touch still has no serious competitors, and it’s as big a hit as it already is based on other attributes. It’ll take a lot more than, say, a hypothetical Zune HD 2 having a 5 megapixel camera to slow the touch’s momentum.