Kyle LeBoeuf

An email from Apple just hit my inbox. I decided to read this one (I get a lot emails from Apple). It’s an info ad about the new lineup of iPods. If you signed up for anything from Apple, then I’m sure you got this email. I would post it up on here, but I’m sure that violates some kind of copyright law. Anyway, the ad focuses on the upcoming iPod lineup. There’s only one thing that’s missing:

The iPod Classic. Seriously. Where’s the love Apple?

I’ve read countless reports and articles over the past year related to the direction in which Apple is heading with the iPod market. Most tech pundits agree: the iPod Classic is quickly approaching its demise. If Apple still carries the iPod Classic, then it doesn’t make sense to exclude it from the promotion and marketing material for the Classic, unless they are trying to get rid of it.

With flash memory becoming less and less expensive and their chips becoming smaller and smaller, there’s plenty of opportunity to simply offer iPods that have large flash-based storage capacities. Flash-based storage works better for music players for a few obvious reasons. The first of which is its resistance to physical movement. A hard drive-based iPod is susceptible to abuse and damage because of the spinning platter. But flash memory is movement-friendly and perfect for things like exercising. Another benefit to flash memory over hard disks is power consumption. Power efficiency is much better on flash-based devices rather than hard disk-based.

Despite the obvious phase-out, I don’t understand why Apple can’t continue to tout the original design as long as they are continuing to produce more units. I owned an iPod Classic for almost a year; then it was stolen. And I mourned its loss. Seriously. There’s still a significant market out there for people with big music libraries who need a device with enough capacity to fit everything.

In the end, I am sure that Apple will replace the Classic with large-capacity iPod Nano and iPod Touch units (or even a new class of iPod all-together).

iPod Classic, even though our time together is drawing to a close, we still love you.

Kyle

Engadget, Infoworld, and various other technology news sites are reporting on a new Microsoft OS project code-named “Midori”. Midori, rather than being based on previous architecture (such as the NT kernel for NT/2000/XP/Vista), will be based on an entirely new kernel, or maybe not even a “kernel” as we know it at all.

They are claiming that Midori will remove dependencies between hardware and applications using virtualization technology that exists today and taking it to the next level. While all of this sounds cool, Microsoft would have a hard time pulling it off.

Every time an OS company makes major changes to their product, they have to add compromises that cater to the desires of customers running legacy applications when moving a product from R & D to production. We’ve seen this in every major release of the Windows operating system, as well as releases in other operating systems, such as Mac OS (example: OS 9 to OS X, then OS 10.1-10.2-10.3 etc.)

Microsoft is already deep in development of Windows 7, the next version of it’s flagship product. Between supporting that product and any offshoots from it, a significant change in architecture probably isn’t in the pipeline anytime soon.

On top of all of that, you have the fact that the Windows brand is universally recognizable. That’s like telling Sony to rename their console series to something besides “Playstation”. That’s like Apple calling their new OS anything without “Mac” in it. It’s just not feasible.

Microsoft is putting a lot of R & D into pushing products out to the cloud, but they are all branded under the Windows Live brand. Read: Windows. Even with it’s cloud computing initiative (which is probably where MSFT is heading with Midori), it’s still retaining the Windows moniker.

Even if there is a completely different Microsoft OS out there in the future, don’t be surprised if it retains the famous/infamous Windows branding.

Then again, losing the Windows brand might be the thing that makes Microsoft look like a different company. Perhaps we’ll see within the next 5-10 years.

Kyle [at] kyleleboeuf.com