iPod Jr. Rumors Become More Substantial

sdimbert writes "Rumors of a new, smaller, "iPodJr" have been floating around the Rumor Sites for a few weeks (as well a here at Slashdot). But now, the rumors have gained credibility and become more substantial. London's Evening Standard reports today (30 Dec 03) that "Apple has announced a cut-price mini version" of the iPod, "costing 65 [~115 USD], which will be able to store 800 songs." Despite the assertion that Apple "announced" the product, there is no mention of it at their official News Page or their product page for the iPod."

Aiming at the low end

[netwiz (33291)]

This is going to pretty much kill in the low end
Flash-based player market. I was looking at Fry's this weekend, and everything in the $49-99 range only came w/ 128MB, upgradeable to 640. Even assuming that the low-end Apple mini-iPod is only 1-2GB, it's got those other players beat by a mile, and hey, it works w/ iTunes!

I'm really looking forward to next year :)

Re:Aiming at the low end

[bwalling (195998)]

This is going to pretty much kill in the low end
Flash-based player market. I was looking at Fry's this weekend, and everything in the $49-99 range only came w/ 128MB, upgradeable to 640. Even assuming that the low-end Apple mini-iPod is only 1-2GB, it's got those other players beat by a mile, and hey, it works w/ iTunes!

I just got a 10GB iPod for Christmas. If it were not given to me, I would never have purchased it. I have wanted an iPod since they were announced, but $300 is more than I think an MP3 player is worth. I looked at the sub $100 MP3 players several times, but none of them were as good as the iPod. It's just not even close (even when you ignore the storage capacity). If Apple truly delivers this product (1GB iPod for $100), it will be a smashing success. I think that I am not alone in looking for a low end iPod (of course, I'm looking no more).

Re:Aiming at the low end

[Frymaster (171343)]

you are exactly the target market apple is gunning for.

the ipod has been out for a while now and given its fairly long use-life just about everybody who was willing to get one at $300 has probably done so already.

now apple is gunning to pick up the people who wanted one but balked at the price point. kinda like publishers who put out the hardcover for the the $30 crowd and then eight months later release a paperback for the $7 folks.

Re:Aiming at the low end

[Triv (181010)]

If you don't care about the bookselling business stop reading now. :)

kinda like publishers who put out the hardcover for the the $30 crowd and then eight months later release a paperback for the $7 folks.

That analogy is absolutely correct and I applaud you for making it. However the specifics are a bit dated as to how the book market now functions.

It's true, that was the way the publishing industry worked a little over a decade ago, but things are slightly different now.

There used to be two different kinds of books - hardcovers (designed to take a beating) and mass markets (designed to be thrown away). Mass markets were approx. 1/3 the price of hardcovers.

But the publishers started to realize that there was another category of book buyer out there - people who wanted books to last but didn't want to pay hardcover prices. So the Trade Paperback was invented. Trades cost about half the price of a hardcover and are more sturdily constructed than mass markets.

Current books rarely hit the $7 price point you mentioned unless they're niche markets (sci fi, horror and romance in particular), they're INSANELY popular (Tom Clancy, Clive Cussler and the like) or they're classics (ie, in the public domain).

This isn't really a problem except that in the last few years book quality (the physical object, not the writing - that's a completely different rant) has decreased dramatically, so people are buying trade paper because of the illusion of permanence (and because they're less weight to tote around. Books are still primarily a portable medium). This feels kinda cheap to me.

Like I said, you weren't wrong by any means and the analogy still holds. Just being...well, a booknerd. :)

Triv

Re:Aiming at the low end

[abacsalmasi (643483)]

A $100 minipod is definately a possibility either with a Flash a HD based system but my money is on a HD system with more or less the same look and feel as the original iPod. Apple isn't going to bring to market a product that lacks in design, usability, and ease of use. That's just not Apple. This might be a historacle moment for Apple, releasing something price competitive. I think Steve took a business course this summer and realised that they have such a good product on their hand that HE even knows he has to play the game. A 1" 2-4 G cheap HD seems very likely, it's already being done, and I am sure that Steve could convince some company to let them go at a good price because of the demand that exists for the iPods. He's got a lot of barganing chips and he'll use them. Remember, this is a guy who convinced the stingy money-sucking music whores to get on board with his idea and now look what happend. Coke and Walmart music stores? C'mon, what's next, a Staples or Home Depot online store? I think people are going to fall in line with Mr. Steve, he's proven time and time again that he can change the world of digital media wether it be through computers, software, or peripherals. Apple is always the first ones on the field ready to play, they might not make the most money, but they start the game. Why wouldn't a company take a chance and be the first to market with them, best price, best product, and dominate, all for a little price break on HD's? People believe in him now, and his reality distortion field. Hi mom.

Re:Aiming at the low end

[oscast (653817)]

"This might be a historacle moment for Apple, releasing something price competitive." All of Apple's hardware (and software) is price competitive. Apple simply doesn't sell low-end cheapy products, but of the products they do sell... they are VERY price competitive.

Re:Aiming at the low end

[the Man in Black (102634)]

Bah, just use DVDs instead

When you can get me a DVD recorder/MP3 player that fits in my pocket, costs $100, and is super simple to use via iTunes, then sure, I'm all over it.

In the meantime though, my money goes to the R&D demigods over at Apple. The fact that it's miniature firewire storage ALONE would make it worth a hundred bucks to me, but it's also designed by the current most successful and easy to use mp3 player?

Re:Aiming at the low end

[Ziviyr (95582)]

Commercial success isn't tightly linked with having a good product, and deification often leads to disillusionment.

PICTURES

[williwilli (639147)]

There hasn't been any official announcement yet; MacWorld keynote [macrumors.com] is January 6. Rumors are circulating of new, smaller iPods with 2gb and 4gb capacities and a lower price. There are some mockups and pictures here. [sejus.com]

music, video, games, recipes, forums -- earth2willi.com! [earth2willi.com]

Re:Aiming at the low end

[spike hay (534165)]

Ok, I'll give you that, but (I don't exacty know what I am talking about here, so please feel free to enlighten me) isn't MP3 encoding done via the same algorighm/codec no matter who writes the wrapper?

Nope. The LAME encoder is different and far superior to other encoders. Different encoders use different psychoacoustic models to determin which parts to throw away. Quality varies greatly between encoders. There are terrible ones like Bladeenc and Xing, which have quality more on par with Real Audio, and superior encoders like LAME which have quality more on par with Ogg Vorbis.

LAME is the only good way to encode. Anything else will produce inferior MP3s.

Re:Aiming at the low end

[afidel (530433)]

iPod's may be mountable as Firewire drives but you can't just dump music to it. The iPod has a database that keeps track of all of the songs and playlists currently on the player. If you don't update the db then it's as if the songs never got transfered. Luckily the format is either open or easily reversed because there are programs like ephpod that can rebuild it.

Re:Aiming at the low end

[netwiz (33291)]

Except that you lose the option of having playlists, the player requires more power per song played (the DVD's gonna have a _way_ higher rotational moment of inertia, so spinup and spindown are more costly), and it's still not as iTunes-compatible. Sure, the hypothetical DVD-player could still use iTunes, but now that we're up to a DVD-player, it's _going_ to be more expensive, esp. considering most of the rumors are fora sub-$100 device.

And CDs have the same playist issues, along with lesser capacity.

Re:Aiming at the low end

[netwiz (33291)]

No, it won't. But I still don't get playlists. I don't get full iTunes compatibility. I've got less capacity than the rumored 2GB unit, and I have to change disks. I've also got to haul around a honking gigantic (by comparison) CD-player that doesn't fit in any pocket I own.

Those features are enough to justify another fifty bucks.

Re:Aiming at the low end

[overunderunderdone (521462)]

I disagree, to some degree Apple's premium pricing as a marketing strategy is making a virtue out of necessity. Apple computers are a niche product, they lost the option of true mass marketting and big marketshare years ago. When the PC market exploded they chose to maintain their fat profit margins rather than maintaining or even expanding their market share - it's pretty clear that it was the wrong decision. They hauled in the cash for a while but they became more and more a niche player. At this point they're stuck in that niche. Cutting their margins to the bone wouldn't produce that many new customers.

The MP3 player market is a whole new ball game, and a second chance. Apple is again the market leader in an emerging market (just as they were in the long ago days of the Apple II). This time I think they are going to go for marketshare. They have to maintain the quality that people expect from the brand, and for that reason they're ever going to go for the very bottom of the bargain barrel. But if they can use superior industrial design/engineering and relationships with vendors to beat their competitors on price while still delivering high quality they are going to go for it.

Mini Me?

[XxtraLarGe (551297)]

I'm sure Apple will tap Vern Troyer to promote the new mini iPod :-)

Re:Mini Me?

[Genady (27988)]

NO NO NO! Billy Boyd! Apple has to redeam the Pippin name in it's lineage. "The new iPod, hobbit sized." :: Cut to scene with Pip and Merry ::

Pip> Whatcha got there Merry?
Merry> The new MiniPod, 800 songs and it's mine, my prescious.
Pip> :: Sees a human pass with a regular iPod :: Wait. It comes in Pints? I'm getting one.

Re:Mini Me?

[the Man in Black (102634)]

You, sir, need to get yourself a job [apple.com]. That would be an EXCELLENT way to capitilize on the success of the trilogy, as well as push their new product.

Plus, Merry and Pippin kick ass.

VAT

[stang7423 (601640)]

I wonder if that price includes VAT. If it is so then the US price would drop to about $100. just food for though.

No announcement

[neverkevin (601884)]

there is no mention of it at their official News Page or their product page for the iPod.

Yeah, probably because Macworld expo is on the 6th, I would expect and announcement then.

Re:No announcement

[ankit (70020)]

True. But the article says:

"Apple has announced a cut-price mini version"

This appears to be a goof-up like what Time-Canada did a while back. This news should have been released on the 6th.

The Evening Standard?

[Alan Partridge (516639)]

They don't even understand LONDON, you can't expect them too understand APPLE.

If you're looking for NEWS in the Evening Standard, you're looking in the wrong fucking place.

Press Release

[Arc04 (601196)]

I want to know how the Evening Standard know about it, without Apple releasing a press release. And if Apple have released a press release, then why isn't it listed on their site?

Maybe someone at the Evening Standard is a /. regular and just nicked it from the earlier story.

Re:Press Release

[ankit (70020)]

Its a cycle!

It all started with thinksecret posting about the rumored mini-ipods. Then came macrumors, which simply linked to thinksecret as their source. Then it was slashdot, which again linked to thinksecret. Then it was macrumors again, which said that it had more sources (they did not disclose them). And then some London newspapers picked up the rumors, and posted them as such. This becomes news on macrumors.com again (see page 2). And now we are back on slasldot.

wow! And it all started with _someone

Probaby some fab time involved

[idiotnot (302133)]

Gotta ramp up the production before you make the announcement. I have a feeling that these will sell very quickly.

First "announced", then "expected to unveil"

[burgburgburg (574866)]

Interesting how something that is initially described as fait accompli is then described as "expected to unveil".

I'm not saying Apple isn't going to have them. I'm just saying this is another glorified rumor (or rumour since it's a UK site).

We all know how this will end.

[shumacher (199043)]

It's gonna look like heaven in thermoplastic, and everyone here is going to want one.

What makes no sense is the timing. When a mainstream site makes an assertion about this sort of thing Apple is usually within days of release. If that were the case, why not launch before christmas.

I don't think we'll see this for some time. Previous rumors put stripes and patterns on the case. I suspect we'll see a Pepsi branded model some time in Feburary.

Super keen idea we'll probably never see:
Use the printing technology used on the blue dalmation and flower power iMacs, and tie in with iPhoto to let buyers have their photos molded into the case of their mini-ipod, rather than just simple laser engraving.

Re:We all know how this will end.

[mccalli (323026)]

When a mainstream site makes an assertion about this sort of thing Apple is usually within days of release.

Job's keynote speech is January 6th.

If that were the case, why not launch before christmas.

Pure guess on my part, but I'd suggest in order to shift stock of their high-margin existing players. Happy to hear better ideas though if someone has them.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:We all know how this will end.

[the Man in Black (102634)]

If that were the case, why not launch before christmas.

Because they were busy selling regular iPods at $300-500 a pop. Clear out all that inventory, take the profit, then announce a new product at MacWorld. Simple profit maximization; a pre-Christmas announcement would have hurt current iPod sales as people demanded the Jr. rather than the big boy (which may or may not have been available). If they couldn't get their hands on one, they'd just wait until after Christmas. Meanwhile, iPods sit dusty and alone on the shelves. Post- you have enough time to ramp up production and meet demand. People that were going to buy an iPod already have one, so you're not taking a loss.

The people that are going to buy this (in DROVES) are the people that looked longingly at an iPod but were much too broke to buy one (read: ME and several million other people).

*ahem*. rumour press.

[Amiga Lover (708890)]

Apple has announced hey? Despite not owning them, I remember when the press said apple has "announced" 68060 based macs. I remember when apple "announced" that their games machine was selling in the US market. I remember when they "announced" the release of a PPC 620 64-bit mac.

"announced" in quotes simply because the press want to get it right before anyone else, and throw guesses and suppositions around regarding beta or even non existent hardware.

It's kind of... a bummer

[Muddie (72996)]

I went to update the firmware on my iPod, and... like, it went all 'beep-beep-beep-beep-beep' and started to smoke. That was kind of... a bummer. So I check my funds and realize that I don't have the cash to get a new one because I bought my week's worth of... herbs. So, I go to the store and see that they released this iPodJr, and I was all like... cool. So, I was able to still listen to Jerry while I was studying. That's like... cool.

I'm Ellen Feiss, and I have an iPodJr.

No way

[gotpaint32 (728082)]

It can't be a true Apple product if you don't have to sacrifice your first born for it... I just don't believe it. I may eat these words later, but for a 115USD a 1-2gb player that is smaller than the current ipod? Flash memory is certainly not that cheap, and as for hard disks, even a used microdrive goes for more than that. Start throwing in Li-ion cells, LCDs, apple's usual cosmetic frills and you've got $$$ just piling up. Buying in bulk will surely reduce costs but what kind of profit are we talking here catering to the low end, this seems too unlike apple?

Re:No way

[Kenja (541830)]

Well the Rio Nitrus [digitalnetworksna.com] is close. Its 1.2GB for around 200$. I do think the 100$ price tag is going to be way off, but it should still be close to what Rio offers.

Rumors?

[Ianoo (711633)]

I'm sure there's some truth in this rumor, but isn't it possible that some "hack journalist" at the Evening Standard read these rumors (maybe even at Slashdot, if so HI!) and is just giving them more credence than they should receive so he or she scores "a scoop". It wouldn't be the first time a journo has been duped in this manner!

No mention of actual capacity or media...

[drayzel (626716)]

Dang.

I really want to know what sort of media they are using and how much!

Lets see, 800 songs, average of around 3 minutes a song, about 1MB per minute for average quality works out to be about 2400MB. Refactor figures for the obligatory "Best Case Scenario" marketing droid math that works out to be a 32MB Flash player containing short songs recorded at 32kbit/s!

In reality it sounds like a 1.5BG player using AAC to fit 800 songs on it. That's a definite buy at that price! BUt if it sounds to good to be true, chances are it is.

Or maybe it is a simple Flash player with a compact flash card? Inserting 2GB CF card would allow for the capacity for 800 songs yet still keep the initial price of the player low.

~Z

Also announced...

[Mr. Darl McBride (704524)]

I was more intrigued by the announcement of the "iPod Micro," which supposedly makes even -more- music available than the regular iPods. It's also got some kind of wireless technology built in, which is something that people have been speculating about forever. What's odd though is that it's not 802.11b/g or Bluetooth, but rather something called "frequency modulation" in an entirely different spectrum.

They said the memory technology was called "station presets" -- anyone know what this means?

Great Price Point?

[rocketjam (696072)]

When the original iPods came out, people complained that the price was too high and no one would buy one. The iPod's success shows there are a lot of people with more disposable income than the critics thought. Still, $300 - $400 is more money than many people could afford/justify for an mp3 player. A $100 price point would make it much more attractive to middle-income people. I think I can probably rationalize the purchase of a $100 mp3 player to myself ;-) (especially an iPod).

# Songs

[_aa_ (63092)]

I dislike the "# Songs" metric (1GB = 200 songs). I understand that a portion of the demographic they're targeting might not know what a megabyte represents, but undoubtedly it's a small percentage of their target market. 800 Songs means little to me, as many songs I listen to are 10 or 15 minutes long. Some songs might be no more than 30 seconds. I also may want to store some songs at higher or lower bitrates than others. Given all the variables that vary within a "Song", I'd rather discuss the exact data capacity in Bytes.

1.44mb Floppy = 0.3 songs
250mb Zip Disk = 50 songs
650mb CD = 130 songs
4.7gb DVD = 940 songs

An iPodjr isn't gonna be that great...

[g_adams27 (581237)]

This sounds like a good thing, but I heard that they're going to replace the regular buttons with chiclet buttons, and you'll have to attach bulky sidecars to it if you want any kind of expansion capability. Plus the headphones will only communicate with the main unit via a poorly designed IR port.

On the plus side, I heard they'll have some great games for it, like "Jumpman", "Zyll" and "King's Quest" by some company called "Sierra On-Line".

This just in...

[computerme (655703)]

Apple will own the MP3 market in few months:

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/12/30.1. sh tml

As soon as apple ships the ipod jr at the price points suggested then they will probably take all 5 top selling spots on the list. Not many people are going to be buying a "iriver" with 128mbs when they can get a iPod that holds 800 songs for the same price AND get the itunes music store AND the ID of ipods AND the ease of use that apple gives them... ...

The 10GB Apple iPod ($299) reportedly edged out the cheaper 128MB Digitalway ($140) in overall sales, with the remainder of the iPod models also being well represented:

1. 10GB iPod ($299)
2. 128MB Digitalway ($140)
3. 20GB iPod ($399)
4. 128MB iRiver ($119.99-$139.99))
5. 40GB iPod ($499)

Rumor sites?

[H0NGK0NGPH00EY (210370)]

Rumors of a new, smaller, "iPodJr" have been floating around the Rumor Sites for a few weeks (as well a here at Slashdot).

What I find amusing is that the above sentence implies that Slashdot is not a rumor site itself. Heh.

What Strikes Me as Funny

[Spencerian (465343)]

...is that while everyone is salivating (justifiably) at the possibility of lower-cost iPods, that no one seems to be wondering much about the other new hardware Apple may announce at the Macworld keynote on 1/6, especially an updated, faster, cheaper G5, and God knows what else that the CEO may surprise us with.

Yep, a good year for Jobs, and good year for Apple and Pixar as well. Give the man a cookie.

What will we lose?

[truffle (37924)]

I seriously doubt the $115 iPod will look exactly like the 10gb model, but with a smaller hard drive (and form factor). It makes sense that the $115 iPod will lack some of the features that the higher end models have. This will better enable apple to upsell people to higher end iPods, and believe me, they want to do that.

So what could we potentially lose from the iPod?
- Firewire. It seems unlikely apple would cut their technology from a product, but this is something obvious to cut. These cheapo iPods are going to be heavily focussed on iTunes users, which are largely windows based. USB could be good enough.
- Built in rechargable battery. A good way to lower production cost is to make the unit require conventional batteries.
- The unit interface. The iPod's screen and dial for selecting music are great. A good way to cut production cost would be to remove these features.

In summary, my expectation is that apple will design their iPod jrs without many of the features which we have come to expect from iPod products. This will lower their production costs, and provide additional motivation for people to buy higher priced units.

Apple doesn't need to provide any of these features to sell iPod Jrs, the larger storage capacity, iTunes, and apple chic design will ensure these things just fly off the shelves.

Obligatory link

[michaelmalak (91262)]

Banana Jr. 2000 [rwth-aachen.de]

Re:iPod for exercise and iTunes rules?

[bwalling (195998)]

I just got an 10GB iPod for Christmas and I was curious how the iPod holds up on a treadmill or a jog around the track?

Im also curious about how iTunes works? If i download some songs on my laptop and can move/play them on my home computer as well?

Your question will probably be better answered here [ipodlounge.com].

Re:iPod for exercise and iTunes rules?

[psxndc (105904)]

I got the armband holder [marware.com] from Marware [marware.com] and used to (before school started) run several miles a day with no problems. Watch it when it rains though because the one time I went when there was a lot of humidity in the air, at the end of the run the iPod sort of seized up for a few minutes. It reset itself and was fine, but that was a pretty scary few minutes.

psxndc

Re:Hard Drive

[kevinvee (581676)]

The Rio Nitrus is 1.5gb and has sold for as low as $150. The price on these mini hard drives is dropping fast as IBM and others continue to refine the manufacturing process. I doubt Apple will earn as much margin as they are on the higher ends, but these Jr's will look attractive to buyers such as myself who don't need a 40 gig brick.

Re:Ogg Vorbis support

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that Apple will miss the business of you and the five other people that aren't buying an iPod for this reason.

Re:Ogg Vorbis support

[weez75 (34298)]

You can play Ogg files in iTunes with a plugin:

http://www.illadvised.com/~jordy/

It's not native but it works. I don't want to get into the debate about file formats but I will tell you the experience with an iPod is far superior to any other player I've tried--perhaps good enough to switch formats.

Re:Ogg Vorbis support

[Nexum (516661)]

[Ashen-faced shock]

Oh my God, how could Jobs and Apple have overlooked this? Man without Ogg support they are pretty much finished that's for sure, say goodbye to the reign of the iPod folks.

Why didn't you write and tell them that they were gonna miss out on your business? At least we stood a chance of saving them then.

Still, it's their fault I suppose, if they choose to ignore such an industry BEHEMOTH as Ogg Vorbis, what chance could they ever stand.

Seriously though, nobody wants to hear you whine self-righteously about a situation you actively chose and worked at to get yourself in. I'm sure Ogg Vorbis is great, it's not the codec I have a problem with, it's with people who whine about products not supporting it when, to be honest, there isn't the market pressure there.

It's like me going and running a RISC-OS machine, and then *EVERY* time someone releases software for the Mac or PC I chime in going "Pfft, no RISC-OS support? Oh, my, God. Well, looks like Microsoft/Apple/Macromedia/Adobe won't be getting my business then. [Nose-In-Air]"

In summary, Ogg Vorbis may be great, however there is little market pressure for supporting it, so stop whining.

Re:any color you like, as long as it's black

[Hollinger (16202)]

Out of curiousity, have you ever looked at the guts of, say, a laptop vs. a desktop? How about actually opening up an iPod? How good are you with a screwdriver and a magnifying glass? Furthermore, where are you going to find the drives capable of fitting in these devices? The reason these are not upgradable is that each device is carefully custom-designed (thanks Johnathon!) pushing the absolute limit of "how much stuff can we cram in this tiny space." If you wanted an upgradable device, you can certainly build one with off the shelf parts -- it's called a PC.