Apples and Oranges · 399 words posted 07/22/2004 10:16 AM
Sometimes you buy technology at just the right time, and sometimes not.
Three weeks ago I purchased a third-generation, 20GB iPod for $399, only to learn with dismay last weekend that Apple was releasing a fourth-generation 40GB iPod for the same price. Fortunately, I was able to exchange the old iPod at the Apple store after paying a 10% restocking fee.
When I got it home, though, I realized I wasn’t buying the same package for the same price: the old $399 iPod included both a case and a remote control. The new $399 iPod includes neither, which means you have to add another $78 to the purchase price if you want the same gadget. In other words, it now costs $477 to purchase the new, high-end iPod with the accessories that most people will consider essential, not $399.
Not one of the gushy press blurbs that appeared on the web late last week mention the price difference. Here’s Steven Levy of Newsweek, all aflutter:
It looks a bit different, operates more efficiently, has a few more features and costs less… The top-of-the-line iPod, holding 10,000 songs (40 gigs, as geeks will tell you), now costs $399. The lower-capacity model, with room for 5,000 songs (20 gigs), costs $299. That’s a $100 price reduction for each. (There’s no more 15-gig model.)
And finally:
If you have yet to jump on the iPod bandwagon, it’s cheaper and more attractive to do so.
Let’s look at how bogus Mr. Levy’s claim is for the 20GB model: the third-generation 20GB was $399, including the remote control and cover. The new 20GB is $377 after you add a remote control and cover—a savings of $22, not $100! (To be fair to Mr. Levy, he wasn’t alone; MacWorld and others made similar claims). Do you get a bit more value for your money? Sure. Is it big news when a technology company makes incremental improvements and slightly reduces the cost of its offerings? Probably not.
To be sure, Apple doesn’t lie about the contents of the package: my new iPod box does not list a remote control or cover among the contents. I haven’t owned the new iPod long enough to test the claims of extended battery life.
While Newsweek was busy plumping for Apple and the iPod Nation, they missed the real story: unless you have a truly massive music collection, you might conclude that the old iPod with a remote and case was more useful than the new iPod without.
* * *
1. On Jul 22, 06:05 PM Felix said:
Yeah, I’ve noticed the press fawning over everything iPod related. If you read Newsweek you would think the iPod was a revolutionary device, not just an nicely-designed, expensive mp3 player.
iPods are not perfect, as I realized when installing the new iTunes wiped out my OS (cue sound of bitter axe-grinding). I now have a Dell player which seems to play mp3s just as well. #