iPod Classic Thwarts Bureau of Labor Statistics

From the fine folks at Cafe Hayek, who never tire of reminding us of ways that things keep getting better and better, often in ways that fly below the radar of every formal measure of material progress:

The iPod will be six years old next month. The newly released iPod Classic with 160 GB of memory is $50 cheaper, holds 40 TIMES more songs, plays color videos and displays photos than the original. It is smaller, lighter and has a better battery. I wonder how the [Bureau of Labor Statistics] takes account of the quality differences when measuring the price index and inflation.

Get yours today, or stick with your decrepit old nano, you hater of progress, you.

Comments

[M.]

There is a deflation of about 50%/year in the CPU business, yet we seem to keep finding ways to use all that new processing power.

[jtuf]

Yeah, if you tracked gramophone sales, you would think the economy was in the dumps.

[shecky]

Tyler Cowen has an amusing post about a similar story: the $200 price drop of the iPhone.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/09/stop-whining.html

[ed]

Yes, yes, electronic devices continue to get smaller and cheaper and better, as they always have. But I'd argue that the iPod has greatly diminished the listening experience. Cramming tiny speakers into your ears to listen to lossy MP3s while jogging or riding the subway is no way to enjoy music. But today we're after quantity and portability and pretty displays, not quality. Hearing music is not the same thing as listening to music.

[neil]

What's more, today's $3 loaf of bread is also smaller and lighter than it was in 2002! And the $3 container of milk, smaller and lighter! I tell you, people just don't appreciate progress.

[Reinmoose]

The "fine folks at Cafe Hayek" also apparently never learned English grammar.

[M.]

Yes, yes, electronic devices continue to get smaller and cheaper and better, as they always have. But I'd argue that the iPod has greatly diminished the listening experience. Cramming tiny speakers into your ears to listen to lossy MP3s while jogging or riding the subway is no way to enjoy music. But today we're after quantity and portability and pretty displays, not quality. Hearing music is not the same thing as listening to music.

Nobody's forcing you to listen to a crappy iPod when you could listen to tunes on something better (f.ex., at home) -- or at all.

But when you can't use a good stereo, a digital music player certainly is better than nothing if you want to listen to music. Lots of people just wouldn't carry around bulky portable CD players with just a couple of CDs and short battery life.

[Reinmoose]

Lots of people just wouldn't carry around bulky portable CD players with just a couple of CDs and short battery life.

Not that some of us didn't used to... 🙂

[Lamar]

Finally an iPod worth the price.

[ed]

Nobody's forcing you to listen to a crappy iPod when you could listen to tunes on something better

The point of the article (and my point as well) is that the iPod is not better, just more convenient. Just like a hot dog is more convenient than a steak dinner.

[J sub D]

Ther is a tendancy to bring uo the phenomenal value explosion in electronics when discussing inflation stats inaccuacies. It's not just there. They don't make cars like they used to. Think about points, tune-ups every 5k miles, tires (bias ply) that lasted 20K miles, engines that rarely lasted 100k miles, seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, power every damned thing, etc.

The average home has probably doubled in size in my lifetime. The selection at the local grocery has easily doubled in 50 years, when I was a child we got oranges in our Xmas stockings because in December they were so expensive that they were a special treat. In 1960 records (remember those) were almost all monaural and played on Hi-Fis vice stereos, the laser then was a laboratory curiosity and the microwave was unheard of in a middle class home. I'm only 52 so I expect to see more of the same in the future. By many measures, the "poor" today have more than the middle class of 50 years ago.

BTW, I take the rose tinted glasses off when I look at the past. It makes me fell less depressed about the present.

[Rhywun]

we seem to keep finding ways to use all that new processing power

Microsoft are the reigning champs of that game.

Hearing music is not the same thing as listening to music.

For most people and most forms of popular music it is.

[kohlrabi]

ed,

"But I'd argue that the iPod has greatly diminished the listening experience."

How? Were people on subways accustomed to great analog sound before?

I think people who used to spend time, money and effort on great audio are still doing that. I think your assumption is that the Ipod replaced that, when it's more likely it's an addition.

[robc]

I know next to nothing about ipods, but I have a question. Do you have to play mp3s or can you play something in other formats, such as ogg, or in a lossless format?

[Warty]

we seem to keep finding ways to use all that new processing power

A corollary to Murphy's law states that a program, given enough time, will consume all available memory. Just sayin'.

[Billy Beck]

That's great: the CPU's are running on time.

Wunnerful.

[ed]

kohlrabi,

I think current stats on download sales (and thefts for that matter) vs. CD sales would contradict your assertion that the trend is both portability and great audio. I think more and more people are abandoning the traditional rack system with big speakers for music on-the-go.

[kohlrabi]

ed,

Perhaps, but apparently those people may never have cared about sound quality to begin with, at least not over portability.

In other words, for people who care about listening experience, the Ipod hasn't changed that. For example, talk to someone who's all about listening experience, and they wouldn't touch a cd, let alone an mp3.

[AC]

I think more and more people are abandoning the traditional rack system with big speakers

I don't know about that. Racks with big speakers seem to be popular for movies and TV. In fact, some consumers seem to base their preferences solely on the presence of racks with big speakers.

[Marcvs]

Much of the music that people are listening to does not warrant a huge system to listen to. The quality of the audio is not the only measure of someone's listening experience. Portability, ease-of-use, selection, etc. all play a roll. Picking out one measure and claiming that the world of music is going in the shitter ignores a lot of variables.

i.e. Who the fuck cares how good the audio is on the latest single?

[Brandybuck]

There is a deflation of about 50%/year in the CPU business, yet we seem to keep finding ways to use all that new processing power.

It's called "software". We're using that extra CPU (and RAM and storage). Back in 1987 we ran one program at a time. Now we're running a fully GUI version of that program, with loads of extra features, in parallel with dozens of other programs. While there is a lot of useless bloat in Windows, you still see users of Linux or BSD consuming all their available CPU capacity. Even if it's not all used continually, it's there ready at a moments notice.

[Vanessa]

I always thought the component system was "traditional" and best quality, and "rack system" referred to the cheapie substitute where all the pieces - receiver, turntable, tape/cd - were in a single unit. So a component system was something you graduated to when you bought your own stereo instead of getting one under the Christmas.

Also, that the current equivalent of the rack system (sans turntable) is called a shelf system.

Am I wrong?

I just got my very first mp3 player - a 2nd generation Nano - love it for the gym where I need music for inspiration - no bulk like a CD Walkman and I can make my own mixes.

Also, I care about sound quality, but can't afford to pay for it/have other priorities in life. I move too frequently to lug a bunch of stereo equipment around anyway.

[Vanessa]

Christmas tree

[prolefeed]

ed -- Quit whining. If you don't like hot dogs or iPods, don't buy them. Are you seriously arguing that we're not better off having more choices? And, I don't know how old you are, but an iPod has better sound quality than scratchy vinyl.

[Marcvs]

And, I don't know how old you are, but an iPod has better sound quality than scratchy vinyl.

That greatly depends on a number of factors. The basic answer is that a brand-new vinyl no high-quality material has much better frequency range than a digital format that has then been compressed to an MP3. Is it noticeable to the average listener? Generally, only if it is put up directly against the vinyl, but it is very noticeable, especially to a trained ear.

What the hell does age have to do with it anyway?

[ChrisO]

Hopefully, hearing aids become smaller/more efficient etc. in the next few decades, seeing as how all the iPod-toting young'uns are going to need them in a few years.

[Rhywun]

ed does have a point in that the iPod (or iTunes) has replaced component/rack/shelf systems for some people--me, for example. In my case, convenience and quantity ARE more important factors than quality; otherwise I would have already owned a top-of-the-line component system rather than the middle-range one I had. In any event, everyone is going to rate different factors differently. ed's assumption that quality is the only important factor or even should be the major factor for everybody is simply not correct.

[rho]

I know next to nothing about ipods, but I have a question. Do you have to play mp3s or can you play something in other formats, such as ogg, or in a lossless format?

MP3s, AAC (better than MP3, IMO, but still compressed). You can play uncompressed WAVs and AIFF files if you desperately need uncompressed audio. Short of a high-dollar listening room and/or headphones you can't really go wrong with 192kbps MP3s and 160kbps AACs.

If you just can't bear to live without Ogg (why I don't know but a lot of nerds are just all a-twitter over Ogg), you can zap some iPods with the Rockbox firmware and risk bricking your toy.

[Taktix?]

I would say, as a musician, that I can definitely notice the loss of quality when an analogue recording is digitized, even when it's CD quality.

I always use the analogy of the picture. With a digital camera, no matter how high the pixel count, one can continue to zoom in until there's nothing but pixels.

With regular film, no matter how much you magnify it, the picture will not lose quality. Music is much the same way.

However, MP3's are just fine for those who don't listen as closely as myself. Plus, I get to keep telling my audiophile-snobbery analogy.

[George Tenet Fangirl]

Um, we're all aware of the fact that MP3 sound quality can be set as high or as low as you want, right? If you want to make a virtually lossless rip of your copy of "Baby One More Time", you can do so! It will be probably more than ten times the file size of a normal rip, but you can still do it! And you can also use other kinds of headphones! If you want to use a pair of $2,000 studio headphones with your Shuffle, you can do that, too! You will look like a tool and won't be able to hear anything at all other than the music, but you can still do it!

[robc]

why I don't know but a lot of nerds are just all a-twitter over Ogg

ogg is unencumbered by ip issues. In theory. There are so many patents though that its hard to say for sure.

[rho]

With regular film, no matter how much you magnify it, the picture will not lose quality. Music is much the same way.

That's not really true at all.

[M.]

That's not really true at all.

You beat me to it.

A lot of the love for analog sound (tube amps, vinyl, etc) doesn't have much to do with fidelity.

F.ex., a tube amp adds more distortion to the signal than most solid state amps, but that distortion is generally considered pleasant.

[ClubMedSux]

As a music lover, I've never understood people who are more concerned about the quality of the recording than the quality of the music. Some of the best music I've heard was recorded lo-fi, and I'd rather listen to that than a perfect analog recording of Bryan Adams. That being said, buy whatever you want according to what's important to you.

[Matt L]

F.ex., a tube amp adds more distortion to the signal than most solid state amps, but that distortion is generally considered pleasant.

Which is why higher end guitar amps are still tube amplifiers. Nothing sounds as good as a Marshall on 10.

I think the whole "quality" vs. "convenience" debate misses a larger point. The market for audio (and video) devices is really broad. You can find speakers at every price point from $50 to $50,000. You can buy a cheap mp3 player and a combo DVD Video/Audio, SACD, CD player for thousands of dollars. Your choices of what to buy are so diverse. To me that's more important and shows the real material progress.

[joshua corning]

Yes, yes, electronic devices continue to get smaller and cheaper and better, as they always have. But I'd argue that the iPod has greatly diminished the listening experience.

I stopped buying and listening to music about 10 years ago....i bought an ipod about 6 months ago and now listen all the time....the change is due to the way i can now listen to music with an ipod....my listening experience has improved.

By the way you can still buy records and CDs and listen to the radio....ipod thus far is not exclusionary.

[joshua corning]

That's great: the CPU's are running on time.

If we are now living under a fascist government how is FDR not a fascist again?

[mantooth]

What are all of you listening to that is so precious? The fact that I can carry 40,000 songs in my truck is amazing. You can still sit in your study and sip port and knit doilies, or whatever you snobs are up too.

I'm a musician too, but sadly it hasn't given me any of the magic powers that it seems to have transferred to others.

[M.]

I think the main point here is that it's hard to argue that more choice is good, and that nobody's forced to throw away their fancy audiophile gear because of things like the iPod.