Old New iPods, New New iPods (7/1/05)
SceneLink
 

Okay, so while we were AWOL yet again (and trust us, this wasn't the last time-- not by a long shot) we missed out on the whole "the iPod photo is dead, long live the iPod" lineup reorg that touched down earlier this week. If somehow you missed it, Apple's press release dishes the skinny: in a nutshell, the "iPod photo" as an entity unto itself is kaput, because all full-size iPods now include the color screens and photo-display capabilities that were once the earmarks of the iPod photo product line. And when we say "all" full-size iPods, we actually mean "both"; Apple has more or less deep-sixed the basic monochrome-display 20 GB iPod and moved the entry-level iPod photo down into its $299 price slot, downgrading its hard drive to 20 GB and nixing its FireWire cable in the process to justify the $50 price break. The 60 GB iPod photo stays where it was at $399, only now it's semantically just an "iPod." Are we clear?

Even though we missed broadcasting that day, we can't help bringing it up now three days late, since the same part of us that relishes the absurdity that we drive on a parkway and park in a driveway can't help but grin like a maniac when noting that, among all iPods with screens, now only the white iPods have color screens, while only the ones that come in multiple colors (i.e. the minis) have monochrome displays. (And yes, we're ignoring the fact that the newly-repriced $329 iPod U2 is still black and red and now also boasts a color screen. Whassamatter, you never heard of an anomaly before? Sheesh.) Oooo, it's practically enough irony to carry us clear through to Macworld Expo Boston, at which point the annual prospect of a Mac trade show sans Apple (or, indeed, even many Mac users) ought to hook us up with all we need until Christmas.

Now that we got that out of our system, to help compensate for boring you with a three-day-old plot twist, howsabout this for a deal? First, we'll pledge not to mention the equally-out-of-date release of iTunes 4.9 with Podcasting support (at least, we won't mention it any more than that), and second, we'll dish a little about alleged future iPod developments, so you can drool chronologically forward as well as back. According to Mac Rumors, UK gadget mag T3 claims that "reliable inside sources" report that the iPod shuffle will soon be available in 2 GB and 4 GB capacities. No word on whether these beefy new tunesticks will replace the $99 512 MB and (now cheaper) $129 1 GB versions, or simply join them in the lineup to give customers still more iTunes-happy options by which they can accrue additional debt.

We know what you're thinking: would Apple really ship a 4 GB shufflePod when there's a 4 GB miniPod sitting right there in the product lineup? Maybe, maybe not-- but the world may never know, since T3 also claims that Apple is ditching the 4 GB iPod mini and moving to 6 GB and 8 GB models whenever this grand product overhaul is slated to happen. As for when, T3 has no info, but a week ago AppleInsider was talking about a "special event that will take place on or before Thursday, July 7th," and surmised that second-gen shufflePods might be on the agenda. So Apple may reveal all within the week-- and heck, there's even a remote chance that, if it does, we'll even be around to tell you about it. Miracles have happened, you know.

 
SceneLink (5264)
And Now For A Word From Our Sponsors
 

From the writer/creator of AtAT, a Pandemic Dad Joke taken WAYYYYYY too far

 

The above scene was taken from the 7/1/05 episode:

July 1, 2005: In addition to all full-size iPods going photo a few days ago, word has it that higher-capacity shuffles and minis are on the horizon. Meanwhile, Apple racks up a million Podcasts in the two days since iTunes 4.9 was released, and IBM says that while it could make a G5 that would fit in a PowerBook, it just doesn't feel like it...

Other scenes from that episode:

  • 5265: Podcast Invasion, Day Three (7/1/05)   We lied: we're going to mention Apple's recent plunge into the oh-so-hep world of Podcasting after all. Why such a blatant violation of a solemn promise made mere paragraphs ago? Well, first of all, Apple just started crowing about a new development in Podcastland, and we'd like to cover something timely without having to worry about never having included the backstory...

  • 5266: "We Meant (Not) To Do That" (7/1/05)   So we feel a little guilty that Real Life(TM) has horned in on production so much that we only managed to broadcast a grand total of four new episodes through all of June (that's batting .182-- who are we, Toronto Blue Jays back-to-the-minors shortstop Jason Alfaro?), but our therapist makes a good point: just how guilty should we feel when the progress of Apple-flavored drama seems to have slowed to the glacial pace of a Department of Motor Vehicles queue on International "Everybody Communicate By Blinking In Morse Code" Day?...

Or view the entire episode as originally broadcast...

Vote Early, Vote Often!
Why did you tune in to this '90s relic of a soap opera?
Nostalgia is the next best thing to feeling alive
My name is Rip Van Winkle and I just woke up; what did I miss?
I'm trying to pretend the last 20 years never happened
I mean, if it worked for Friends, why not?
I came here looking for a receptacle in which to place the cremated remains of my deceased Java applets (think about it)

(1293 votes)
Apple store at Amazon

As an Amazon Associate, AtAT earns from qualifying purchases

DISCLAIMER: AtAT was not a news site any more than Inside Edition was a "real" news show. We made Dawson's Creek look like 60 Minutes. We engaged in rampant guesswork, wild speculation, and pure fabrication for the entertainment of our viewers. Sure, everything here was "inspired by actual events," but so was Amityville II: The Possession. So lighten up.

Site best viewed with a sense of humor. AtAT is not responsible for lost or stolen articles. Keep hands inside car at all times. The drinking of beverages while watching AtAT is strongly discouraged; AtAT is not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers."

Everything you see here that isn't attributed to other parties is copyright ©,1997-2024 J. Miller and may not be reproduced or rebroadcast without his explicit consent (or possibly the express written consent of Major League Baseball, but we doubt it).