Apple’s original iPod came out 10 years ago this month. It will likely die tomorrow (at least its Classic form). Yet the original iPod begat the iPhone and iOS. It changed computing. Almost nobody realised that at the time.
When the first iPod came out, very many people dismissed it. It wasn’t Windows-compatible. It didn’t use flash memory. It was too expensive. And so forth, and so on. This comment thread from Slashdot typified much of the initial response from the tech community: “No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.” Or: ” I don’t see many sales in the future of iPod.”
Yeah. That was wrong. Laughably, embarrassingly wrong. So many reviewers got the iPod wrong. But not Elliot Van Buskirk. Not only did Van Buskirk realise right away that the iPod was going to be a great MP3 player, he looked beyond its immediate impact and saw the larger future:
But the naysayers have it wrong, and I’ll tell you why: The iPod is revolutionary in a number of ways, and its descendants will replace the PC.
He went on to predict that
[P}eople will use one comprehensive iPod-like storage and connectivity unit in combination with every specialised peripheral you can think of. As before, something designed for digital music will spread across other areas of technology. Descendants of the iPod MP3 player will replace the PC as the hub of your digital life.
That seems to be where the industry is headed, with the iPad and even moreso Windows 8 slates. These children of the iPod are slowly replacing our laptops and desktops, especially as we can begin to offload more data and services to live online that we can access anywhere. [CNET via Evolver]
Matt
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:12 AMHow is the iPad a descendant of the iPod?
Robert
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:17 AMHow is it not just a big ipod?
Matt
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:23 AMBesides the fact that it uses the same software – a lot is different.
By your logic I could call the windows phone 7 a descendant of the PC.
Robert
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM“a lot is different”. Yup… size. It’s a big ipod.
Troy
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:14 AMIf they destroy the ipod classic, all hope is lost. They’re essentially throwing away their original idea that made the ipod what it is. I am not interested in getting a touch and never will be. The ipod classic is all i’ll ever use.
Peter
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 11:03 AMThe Classic was my last Apple product, the battery was amazing, the capacity could only be described as being big enough to accommodate gods. The apps were so-so, but it didn’t matter because it did what it needed to do.
On the other hand, the occaisional pop I’d get and the randomly hacking up my crappy music wasn’t much appreciated and ultimately why I sold it to my housemate on the cheap.
Norgan
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 11:16 AMLOL riiiight
Firstly the iPod was not an MP3 player, that was only added much later. Many other more flexible devices were around that were MP3 players.
What everyone underestimated it the power of the the juggernaut marketing machine that is Apple.
Unfortunately noone else put the money and innovation into marketing and as a result, rather than a device that creates a common standard to work with everything, we have a closed system that can only work with proprietory software and inferfaces.
The iPod and Apple products do more to harm technical advancement than they do good.
Another example of blind fanatisism and the ignorance to the original technology that preceeded the iProducts. (iRiver anyone, omg the “i” was used on music device BEFORE Apple?! Yup it certainly was!)
Andrew
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 11:35 AM“The iPod and Apple products do more to harm technical advancement than they do good.”
I’m glad someone else recognises the damage that a locked hardware/software combo controlled by one company can cause. It’s growth comes at the detriment of diversity and the kinds innovation that made it possible to rise in the first place. Vertical integration and marketing sees to an inevitable dark conclusion.
If you thought the 90′s MS was bad, get ready for a whole new kind of hurt. The irony being that now the electronics world needs MS to save it from Apple.
Cameron
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 12:12 PMWhat? why would they get rid of the iPod classic without any replacement? The iPod touch has no where near the capacity and battery life, and isn’t fully compatible with the current accessories out there.
Robert (B-ob)
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 12:22 PMAhhh, Nomad. I remember my Nomad. And my Nomad Jukebox. And Zen. And Zen NX. And Zen Vision. (And so on)
RIP Creative.
Jake
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 1:27 PMI like the closed platform hardware/software lock. Uniformity and consistent designs is what makes Apple for me. I’ve used Windows and OS X (and iOS) for years and have had the chance to use androids and Windows phones. I prefer the Apple products despite some of their shortcomings because I find them more functional overall. Also once you have several Apple products syncing with one computer it is nice to have iTunes as your control panel for all your devices instead of f***ing Windows where every gadget you buy installs drivers, it’s own system process that 9 times out of 10 is eating half your system memory and some poorly designed UI that half often is only trying to emulate features Apple already offers and executes with far more style and grace.
All companies have their shortcomings but I think Apple’s approach us working pretty well – for me anyway.
Also it’s not a crme to want a product that is as appealing physically as it is specs-wise – Walking in
Jake
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 1:29 PM*Walking into department stores and seeing 20 of what is essentially the same laptop with 20 very unappealing designs is somewhat nauseating. The Apple displays are generally very clean and simply shows the range if products.
Jake
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 1:31 PMApologies for the obvious misspellings – small touch screens make proofing a pretty unappealing task.
Steve
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 7:56 PM“many people dismissed it. It wasn’t Windows-compatible. It didn’t use flash memory. It was too expensive. And so forth, and so on.
Yeah. That was wrong. Laughably, embarrassingly wrong. So many reviewers got the iPod wrong.”
The main reason the iPod succeeded was precisely BECAUSE it became Windows-compatible. At the time, I remember all reviews being favourable to the iPod but bemoaned its lack of Windows support (this was back before iMacs became ‘cool’ and Mac OS was used primarily by niche demographics). Once Windows support was offered, it snowballed and the iPod reached critical mass to become the most popular MP3 player by 2003ish > which later cemented the ubiquity of the iPhone > and resurgence of Mac OS.
So no. No-one was ‘laughably wrong’ and this “I told you so. Nyah nyah!” tone of the article is incredibly childish.