Skip to main content

Opinion: In the era of Apple Music, does the iPod have a future?

The tech sector does love its hype. Every new product is revolutionary. All new apps are ground-breaking. Everything anyone ever launched is going to change the way we do X. Almost without exception, it isn’t, they aren’t and it doesn’t.

But the iPod in 2001 definitely qualified. That simple, clever marketing slogan – “a thousand songs in your pocket” – beautifully summarised something that really was revolutionary. For the first time ever, we could carry close to a hundred albums in a device that slipped into our pocket and could go everywhere with us. Most of us listened to a lot more music in a lot more places.

It also propelled Apple along a new path. It’s no exaggeration to say that without the iPod, there would likely never have been an iPhone. The iPod revolutionized music and also transformed Apple.

But there have been a couple of recent signs that Apple no longer views the iPod as an important product … 

In Apple’s financial report for Q1 2015, Apple reported sales figures for iPhone, iPad, Mac, iTunes and even accessories – but iPod sales were nowhere to be seen. The last we heard of those was the previous quarter, when they were down 25.1% at just 2.62M.

And just last month, the iPod was demoted on Apple’s homepage. No longer does it have its own tab alongside Apple’s other products. It doesn’t even get a tab within Apple’s Music section – you have to scroll way down the page past Apple Music, Beats 1, Connect and iTunes before Apple admits that the iPod exists.

Go further back to January 2014, and even then Tim Cook briefly and almost dismissively described the iPod as “a declining business.”

So what does all this mean for the future of the iPod? Does it even have one? I can see three possible futures for the iPod line-up:

  • Maintain it as a current product line, continuing to launch updated models
  • Continue to sell existing models as a legacy product, but cease meaningful updates
  • Pull the plug

The recent discovery of images found inside the iTunes 12.2 update seem to point to path 1: there appear to be new models on the way. But that may not be as meaningful as it seems …

Officially, the iPod Shuffle was last updated a couple of years ago – but that was nothing more than new color options. The device itself has been unchanged since 2010. I’d argue that this is already a legacy product, sitting quietly on a rocking chair on the porch until it finally dies.

It’s a similar story with the iPod Nano. Colors aside, it hasn’t been updated since 2012.

And as for the iPod Touch, that was nominally updated just over a year ago, in June 2014. But again, strip away the color changes, and set aside Apple bringing the 16GB model into line with its bigger brothers, and nothing has changed under the hood there either since 2012.

That’s been particularly frustrating for developers, who used to be able to run the latest iOS betas on a relatively inexpensive device while keeping their own phones on a stable release. But with an ancient A5 processor and a 4-inch screen, it’s now useless as a development platform.

So, three iPod models. None of them meaningfully updated in almost three years. The product line rendered invisible on Apple’s homepage. And Apple ceasing to report on sales numbers. It seems to me that we can pretty much eliminate option 1: continuing to maintain the iPod as a current product. We are already some way down the legacy product path.

The question then is how long Apple might allow the iPod to remain on sale as a legacy product? iPod fans might take heart from the iPod Classic. Apple last updated the device way back in 2008, but a small but loyal fan-base meant that Apple continued selling it right up until last year, when it was quietly dropped. Six years as a legacy product.

But I don’t think that’s going to happen here. The future of music is a streaming one. Only the iPod Touch can live in the brave new Apple Music world, and if Apple intended to update that, I think it would have done so by now. Update: And DRM restrictions mean you can’t make Apple Music available offline then transfer it to your iPod via iTunes.

So my view is that the entire iPod line is now living on borrowed time. Remember Apple’s ruthlessness when it comes to abandoning what it considers outdated technology – from the removal of optical drives from MacBooks in 2012 to the dropping of pre-USB-C ports in 2015. At some point, it’s going to finally pull the plug on the iPod, and I suspect that time is not more than a year or so away.

I’ll always have a great deal of affection for the iPod. But I think it’s coming soon to the end of its days.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. jmiko2015 - 9 years ago

    I wrote my own opinion about iPods earlier last week and I think that they have future. Or at least the iPod touch, because from now on, you will be buying Touch as the entry-level Apple Music Device, not as an iOS device. So I believe that the rumored gold iTouch + Apple Music will have future

    • Apple Music on a mobile product requires a data connection and for most customers that is invariably going to be cellular as Ben alluded to. Unless they revamp the iPod with a cellular radio, it doesn’t fit the bill very well. And we have plenty of historical precedence to believe this isn’t something Apple will do.

      The older models of iPhone are the new iPods. The Apple Watch is the new nano.

  2. “I mean, sure, you could Make Available Offline music streamed from Apple Music, and transfer that to your iPod via iTunes, but that’s the old Apple world.”

    Can you though? When I attempted to do so with my iPod Nano, it gave me an error message saying that subscription music couldn’t be transferred to my iPod. Granted, I have a 5th generation iPod Nano but I was under the impression you could only sync Apple Music onto iOS devices.

    • Ben Lovejoy - 9 years ago

      Interesting – if you can’t, that adds further weight to my argument.

      • larspinkwart - 9 years ago

        Well they could change that quiet easily if they wanted to. They just have to implement a timer so you have to sync it to your Mac every 30 days to stay active. Or they just transfer the info on how long you have subscribed to Apple Music onto the iPod.

      • Ben Lovejoy - 9 years ago

        Right, but that’s back to my iPod Touch argument: if Apple wanted to do that, it would have done so.

      • larspinkwart - 9 years ago

        True. Lets hope they change their mind.

    • michielvossen - 9 years ago

      Same here. My fantastic 4-year old Classic hasn’t been touched in the last 2 weeks because it doesn’t allow me to sync offline media. I’m keeping it, but I’m not sure if I’ll ever use it again.

  3. larspinkwart - 9 years ago

    I personally would love to see a new iPod touch as well as a new Nano. While the iPod would allow to stream with Apple Music , I think the Nano could too. They just need to add Wifi/BT to it. On your Mac and your iPhone you already have to option to sync the music to one of your devices. So you find a song/playlist on your Mac/ iPhone just send it to your Nano where it gets downloaded automatically . Hell, they could even continue the Shuffle as you said just for offline syncing. While the iPod line doesn’t generate much revenue it isn’t hard to upgrade either and it enriches Apples ecosystem especially for new Apple Users.

  4. I was under the impression that you couldn’t transfer offline Apple Music tracks to an iPod. Can anyone confirm?

    • Mike Foulis (@mfoulis) - 9 years ago

      You are correct. You can’t transfer offline tracks to iPods. I believe this is because of the DRM protection. If they allowed this one could simply add a substantial number of tracks to say and old iPod classic. If you were to cancel your subscription Apple would have no way of removing those tracks from your iPod.

  5. Sofiane Larbi - 9 years ago

    For people who want a portable iOS device to play games, take pics and all the stuff an iPhone can do without the hassle of a contract or $700 an iPod is perfect.

  6. I think there still might be a future for the iPod nano: make it the size of an Apple Watch, include Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, put a band on it (compatible with Apple Watches, but cheaper) and you have a poor man’s Apple Watch that only plays music and tiny videos. Make it autosync its music with your iPhone just like Apple Watch does. I would buy it if I didn’t already own an Apple Watch.

    • You’ve posted some great arguments for why Apple would never do this. You don’t want to cannibalize a higher margin product with a lower margin product.

  7. cleesmith2 - 9 years ago

    Put GPS in the iPod Touch and turn it into an awesome bike computer.

  8. chrisl84 - 9 years ago

    There is a huge market for 10 to 14 year olds who dont need iPhones yet, but that want the experience and a way to listen to their music and play app games, I think dropping the iPod touch would be a mistake.

  9. bradleyza - 9 years ago

    Connect a new iPod nano to the El Capitan beta 3 and you will see brand new colors for both the touch and the nano, there is a new gold nano pictured there.

  10. Smigit - 9 years ago

    I think the family is on borrowed time, but I’m not sure they’d all fade into the sunset at once. I can see them dropping the Nano for instance first and keeping the shuffle as a very low cost device, and the Touch as an iOS option for a while longer or doing something similar. The devices do have value, but I’d start to question if they need three different models after having already decided that having the classic around didn’t make a lot of sense. At least the Touch can make use of streaming over a local network, so that model in particular could have some longevity if Apple wanted to keep it around.

  11. Gregg Mojica - 9 years ago

    Reblogged this on Apple Rumors and commented:
    Very true. I believe the iPod does not have a future in the post iTunes world.

  12. Dafty Punk - 9 years ago

    They should at least keep the shuffle if they kill the rest of the line. The shuffle has a clear purpose as a small, affordable, simple music player. It’s cheap to manufacture and I’m sure at this point Apple has a incredibly healthy margin on it.
    The nano and touch are redundant. Kill one and keep the other or kill them both and buy a iPad mini.

  13. Mimus Polyglottos - 9 years ago

    Looking further ahead, can’t we see a future in which telephone numbers no longer exist and we communicate with people via apps similar to today’s Skype and Facetime? If so, the iPhone could eventually morph into a souped-up iPod Touch: no phone, but everything else.

    On a separate note, the one thing I’d wish for in a new iPod Touch at this point is more capacity. My iTunes library is 110 gigabytes, so even 128 GB would be too small for me. And I know lots of people with iTunes libraries that are at least twice the size of mine.

    • Ben Lovejoy - 9 years ago

      I kept my 160GB iPod Classic for a long time for just that reason: it held my entire music collection. These days, with first iTunes Match and then Apple Music, and unlimited data, I don’t need to do that any more.

      • Mimus Polyglottos - 9 years ago

        Most of the people I know with big iTunes libraries are like me: most of their music is non-commerical. About 80% of my music is home recordings, field recordings of traditional musicians, etc., so iTunes Match doesn’t help and no way am I paying for a subscription service like Apple Music.

    • chrisl84 - 9 years ago

      If Apple ever put an LTE chip into the iPod touch the world would forever be changed.

  14. jbigger9999 - 9 years ago

    I continue to use my 160gb iPod and will do so until Apple introduces a iPhone with a lot more storage.

  15. joelwrose (@joelwrose) - 9 years ago

    Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple has a plan for this. Updated iPods with wifi. You sign into your account and have access to all the Apple Music library and can store things locally to listen to. Even the shuffle could get in on the game. I would love to be able to have the shuffle automatically grab new music when it connects to wifi- bringing the “shuffle” back to the shuffle.

  16. cmonmun - 9 years ago

    Dropping the touch is a foolish move. Short term gain for a long term loss.

    As an example, my son had a Touch. He loved it, and by extension, Apple kit in general.

    It needed an update, and I needed something for my daughter.

    As Apple no longer offer a ‘current’ iPod touch or other entry level touch device, they’ve ended up with a Hudl each.

    Lost to the Apple ecosystem. My son will get a smart phone next year – what device do you think he’ll prefer?

    Catch ’em young, as they say.

    • Jeffrey Maciejewski - 9 years ago

      Agreed. Like it or not, the Touch is an important gateway device for Apple. Kids whose parents don’t want to fork over the money for an iPhone (and the expensive contract) get iPod touches. And as you say, this introduces them to the Apple ecosystem and establishes brand loyalty right from the get-go. That was the path taken by both of my kids. Now one has an iPhone and the other will very likely get one too.

      I bought a 2G iPod touch and still have it. In fact, I’m considering replacing my iPad mini with a new touch if it gets updated in the coming days. I never need the phone and I’m always near a Wi-Fi network, so it would be nice to have a pocketable iPad.

      So yes, catch them young!

  17. theoriginaljcgarza - 9 years ago

    Not to nitpick, but, but the launch of the iPod was *not* “for the first time ever, we could carry close to a hundred albums in a device that slipped into our pocket and could go everywhere with us.” I think it’s important that people keep in mind that Apple doesn’t really *invent* product or categories–it makes better versions of them, at the right time. Apple Music may, or may not, be another example of that.

    • Ben Lovejoy - 9 years ago

      What mp3 player prior to it had 1000-song capacity?

      • dailycardoodle - 9 years ago

        There were HD options that were huge and there were solid state stocks that could only hold 15 songs. The 1st gen iPod hit the sweet-spot with 5 gig in a (at the time!) small package.

      • theoriginaljcgarza - 9 years ago

        If you consider the iPhone 6 “pocketable”, this was about the same size (albeit, 1 inch thick), and came out at least 1 year earlier. Before you point out this is noticeably bigger than the iPod, please remember I already pointed that out in my original comment that Apple makes better versions of existing products…

    • nottellinyou - 9 years ago

      Actually it was! The only competition at the time was the 6GB Creative Nomad Jukebox and if you can fit one of those in your pocket Mae West would be pleased to say the least. :-P

      • There were plenty of other products out there that fit a 2.5″ HD with much larger capacity than 6GB and in a smaller package than the Nomad. BUT. They weren’t as small as an iPod.

  18. nottellinyou - 9 years ago

    STOP THE MUSIC!

    As a corporate enterprise IT guy I’m REALLY surprised no one in the “tech press” or blogs seems to have any idea how the iPod Touch is used in business. The iPod Touch running iOS, especially the low ram versions, is a great inexpensive hand held device for all sorts of applications that do not require a cellular connection. It’s a great and competitive device to lower cost Android based phone alternatives.

    We would like to see Apple release an updated version running the same hardware as the iPhone 6 without the cellular radio. We don’t want to pay the extra $$$ for an iPhone when all we need is a device in our warehouse that runs an internal app connected to our network and hitting a back-office application.

    Please give the iPod Touch some love beyond the Music stuff. It’s a GREAT handheld computer and could be even better.

  19. dailycardoodle - 9 years ago

    keep the iPod touch for kids as a gateway to iPhone, get rid of the other two. Make some cheap BT headphones and lower the Watch sport price over the next couple of years so runners have an option.

  20. Grayson Mixon - 9 years ago

    Why is the iPod Touch part of the iPod line anyway?

    Rebrand the iPod Touch as the iPad Nano (nano, mini, air, and pro). It has more in common with the iPad anyway.

    Rebrand the iPod Shuffle as the iPod (the one and only) and market it to active types who would prefer something waterproof, small, light, and cheap (in case of damage during some extreme sport. No matter what kind of case I have, I am not taking my iPhone whitewater rafting.)

  21. tigerpork - 9 years ago

    It will have a future when apple decides to lower its price.

  22. acgwipeout - 9 years ago

    I think Apple missed the boat entirely about 3-4 years ago by not outfitting the iPod with a 3G radio solely for iMessage, App Store, music streaming, gaming. The consensus was that no one spoke on the phone anymore, and the need for a voice radio would be moot. They missed a major demographic. Kids/Teens. There’s your cheaper iteration of the iPhone. A data only device. Able to accomplish the same tasks minus the phone calls, which didn’t matter anyways. It could still be relevant and would make that darn 16gb model seem relevant.

  23. John C-Hack - 9 years ago

    At less than half the price of an iPhone (without a plan) the iPod has a great future for kids. For those of us that have kids we don’t necessarily want them to have a cell phone, nor do we have money to pay for another phone on the plan. But if you are rolling in dough I guess it doesn’t matter.

  24. rzozaya1969 - 9 years ago

    I think that the iPod classic would still be usefull. I used to have one for my car. It hold all of my songs, and the clicker or wheel was very easy to use to advance a song when driving, no need to take the eyes from the road.

    Also, the iPod shuffle is pretty good for sports, where it’s small and a very simple interface.

    About the rest, I don’t think that there’s much future.

  25. paulthefencerfencer - 9 years ago

    I’ve been an iPod user since the beginning with the Classic, then every model of the Touch. I loved every one of them. I was disheartened to learn they probably be dumped, after a few years with no updates. So I bought my first iPhone, the iPhone 6. I love it, but it cost me $1000 because if was off contract. That stung quite a bit. If there were new iPod Touches I probably wouldn’t have bought an iPhone. I listen to music a lot. At least 2 to 3 hours a day, every day. Steaming for me is not something I’m interested in. I don’t want to use up data listening to music when I can carry it around with me on my device for free. I think if they were to update to an iPod Touch 6 I’d probably still buy one even though I have the phone.

    • dailycardoodle - 9 years ago

      The Classic wasn’t the beginning young padawan. I had the 5 gig iPod with a spinny round scroll wheel! But them I’m old.

  26. Dr. Light (@pc_doc80) - 9 years ago

    The shuffle is, for me at least, the best work out device. You load up your multiple playlists onto a lightweight device that clips onto your shirt. Then go for a run/work out. What is really frustrating is that you cant sync apple music playlists with it.

  27. scumbolt2014 - 9 years ago

    Well, that’s the killer app for this user. I’ll be canceling my subscription after the trial. I thought maybe Apple would try to distinguish them from all the other streaming services by letting me take my music with me without having to be sure I was on a device that has WiFi capabilities.

    I mean killer app, because that would be the thing that would get me to pay 15 dollars a month to have access to all of the music and be able to use it when and how I want it. Otherwise to me every streaming music service that has and will be are just glorified internet radio stations. I have free radio in my car already, I’ll keep listening to my owned music.

    • Paul Andrew Dixon - 9 years ago

      i think one of the reasons they limited it to wifi – just like the others, is because they would only be able to provide a good service for people in a good 4G/ LTE area AND with a suitable data plan… my plan is ‘unlimited’ although capped at 1gb usage over a 3 day period and fair use for up to 7gb…but if i were to listen to apple music to and from work every day over LTE i would easily go over this amount…

      Until companies can roll out free wifi on every street corner, shop, bus stop etc — it will be an issue (thankfully this is gradually happening in the bigger cities)

  28. Wiley Jake - 9 years ago

    I’m still using my 3rd Gen iPod with the no moving parts touch wheel. I have easily changed the battery twice, but it still works like a charm. I bought it in 2004, so it is over 10 years old now. Conversely, my 32GB iPod touch that I bought in 2008 is in pieces right now because It’s like brain surgery replacing the battery. I’ll get it up and running again, but my 2004 beauty keeps chuggin’ along in the meantime. Apple has made it increasingly harder to replace your own batteries, because they love to see us come into their stores with our little credit cards in hand. I’m all about free enterprise and capitalism and all that, but as long as I can change the battery myself, I ain’t payin’ nobody $150 to put in a new battery. The first time someone at an Apple store said to me, “We can replace the battery for the cost of the battery plus a $150 repair fee,” I was tempted to say, “Do you wanna see how hard I can punch?” Instead, I smiled, picked up my iPod, ordered a new battery from Amazon.com and replaced it myself. Stick it to the man!

  29. Paul Andrew Dixon - 9 years ago

    I think that apple should get rid of the shuffle – complete pointless… the ipod touch still has use for those who don’t have an iphone but still want a portable mobile gaming, video, internet, photo viewer device…

    The nano — i think if it had a built in camera and apple music playback — this would be the more popular choice for runners and people on the go…

    The biggest thing that has killed the ipod is the iphone — it has it built in, and when away from wifi you have cellular access to continue using all the features…

  30. Appsolute - 9 years ago

    We are using the iPod touch for our bar/restaurant app. Replacing them with iPhone’s is too expensive, replacing them with iPad mini’s is … well they are too big. The iPod touch is just perfect as it is, as remote for the waiters, size and price!

  31. Joe Shelton - 9 years ago

    The iPod Touch definitely has its fans, I should know, I’m one of them. I think the iPod line is still a vital part of the Apple product line in that it is a low-cost entry point for iOS devices for ALL ages. I don’t think they should abandon the iPod lineup, the only one that ever really gets a meaningful update is the touch. The Nano has never had an idea what it wants to be, they keep changing that form factor. The shuffle? They have a compact design that works and is adored by runners / athletes. If I would suggest anything, it would be that they just yank the cell radio out of the iPhone C line and call that the iPod touch. Plastic, already designed, fewer parts than the cell-brother, should lower costs. When you update the C iPhone line, make last year’s model the Touch. Done.

  32. I’m still an iPod Classic user, filled with my lossless CD rips. It (mostly) stays attached to my car stereo with the 30 pin connection, but when I reach out for my Sennheiser HD555 headphones, it is my music player of choice.

  33. melacondour - 9 years ago

    I’ll hang on to my iTouch 4 till it falls apart. It can do almost everything my phone can without a data plan. I feel safer walking around with it then I do “flashing” my iPhone 6 which has become such a target for thieves. But most of all, I already have a huge collection of music and other stuff in my iTunes, so I’m able to accommodate all my moods and desires in one nice slim device, regardless of whether there’s data/wifi or any other connection available. It’s still one of my favorite devices. Ever.

  34. scole665 (@scole665) - 8 years ago

    Yeah, it kinda sucks that I can’t have the music stream on my iPod. I like the nano and shuffle (like is a strong word since they are a substandard product, IMHO) for one thing and one thing only . . . working out (running usually). And, since Apple doesn’t care to figure out a way to make their own service available to its own devise, I guess the nano is going to die.

Author

Avatar for Ben Lovejoy Ben Lovejoy

Ben Lovejoy is a British technology writer and EU Editor for 9to5Mac. He’s known for his op-eds and diary pieces, exploring his experience of Apple products over time, for a more rounded review. He also writes fiction, with two technothriller novels, a couple of SF shorts and a rom-com!


Ben Lovejoy's favorite gear