Are smart phones making MP3 players obsolete?

[OldRightHander]

This morning I saw an online review of the new ipod nano and something in the review stuck out to me. The writer of the article is saying that anyone with a smart phone has no point owning a stand alone MP3 player anymore.

Immediately I had to disagree with the guy. My wife and I both have ipods and smart phones and we don't use our phones as music players. The main reason for me is that I often run my ipod through my home stereo and I use my phone quite a bit for its main purpose...as a phone. Right now I have my ipod running through the stereo and I don't want to stop the music every time the phone rings. I guess I can see where if you're out walking and you might need to take a call where it could be handy to have it all on one device, but when I'm going to the gym I leave my phone in the locker and take the iPod so I can have an hour or two away from the phone.

Anyone think MP3 players are going the way of CD players or that there will always be a place for them because of people like me who don't want a phone call to interrupt the music? Just curious if I'm the odd man out here.

[bucksfan2]

For the most part yes. With blue tooth technology soon (if not already) you will be able to have you iphone in your pocket and play music throughout the house. I am sure the technology will advance to the point where you can play music and talk on the phone at the same time, if not already.

The one caveat is the gym. I have an ipod shuffle and will continue to have an iphone shuffle as long as I am going to the gym and running. I don't feel like carrying a bulky iphone when I am running and opt for a light device.

[westofyou]

My mp3 player is small, so it's a better workout tool... my Iphone makes me do everything via Itunes which I hate.

So for me.. no

[medford]

yes, mp3 players are going the way of the dinos (scary to think that I owned a mp3 player before the ipod was ever released and now I'm writing about the standalone mp3 player going away)

However, I don't think it will be b/c of your phone per say, but b/c of the cloud. Eventually your stereo will be connected thru the internet to a list of songs you've selected on the web. You're phone will be connected to the same list of songs, as well as your car, TV, etc... There will probably be something of similar size to the nano, but rather than storing songs, it will have a wireless connection to the cloud for people that like to take their music out on a run, but don't want to risk dropping their phone while out on that run or while in the gym, etc...

In the future, I think many of us will still have a home computer that will act as a sever storing movies, songs and what not off of the cloud to avoid the wireless costs, but that computer will connect to most of the things w/n the house to transmit that data for our enjoyment.

[westofyou]

yes, mp3 players are going the way of the dinos (scary to think that I owned a mp3 player before the ipod was ever released and now I'm writing about the standalone mp3 player going away)

However, I don't think it will be b/c of your phone per say, but b/c of the cloud. Eventually your stereo will be connected thru the internet to a list of songs you've selected on the web. You're phone will be connected to the same list of songs, as well as your car, TV, etc... There will probably be something of similar size to the nano, but rather than storing songs, it will have a wireless connection to the cloud for people that like to take their music out on a run, but don't want to risk dropping their phone while out on that run or while in the gym, etc...

In the future, I think many of us will still have a home computer that will act as a sever storing movies, songs and what not off of the cloud to avoid the wireless costs, but that computer will connect to most of the things w/n the house to transmit that data for our enjoyment.

True on the cloud, I stream from Rhapsody/Pandora/Slacker all day and rarely load my mp3 player up as much as I did 5 years ago

[OldRightHander]

Maybe I'm becoming obsolete. I still listen to entire albums. I never set my ipod to shuffle and I don't listen to streaming services. If I hear something on the radio I like, I'm likely to buy the entire album and listen to it that way, in order from beginning to end. If an artist releases one song, the chances of me buying it are pretty slim unless it's put on a later album. Maybe I'm the odd ball, but I prefer listening to music that way.

[*BaseClogger*]

Maybe I'm becoming obsolete. I still listen to entire albums. I never set my ipod to shuffle and I don't listen to streaming services. If I hear something on the radio I like, I'm likely to buy the entire album and listen to it that way, in order from beginning to end. If an artist releases one song, the chances of me buying it are pretty slim unless it's put on a later album. Maybe I'm the odd ball, but I prefer listening to music that way.

What does that have to do with streaming music from the cloud?

The other posters are right, with wireless technology nowadays you can play music from your phone and keep it by your side. I usually play my music from my computer at home anyways...

[OldRightHander]

What does that have to do with streaming music from the cloud?

The other posters are right, with wireless technology nowadays you can play music from your phone and keep it by your side. I usually play my music from my computer at home anyways...

I must have read it wrong. I thought you were talking about things like Pandora and the like where it's kind of like the radio. If we get to the point where people have several gigs of online storage and every device you have just accesses what you have stored there, I guess that would work. I think it would be best to have devices that would have a certain amount of offline storage available in case you were somewhere you didn't have access to a decent high speed network, so that's probably where portable players are headed. You store your stuff on the cloud, but you still have a player that can store a fair amount on it for offline playing when you need to.

[Razor Shines]

I pay for the premium Spotify and can stream full albums, make playlists, whatever. I use it on my computer and phone. My wife uses the same account on her phone, for one $9.99 monthly fee. I have no use for an MP3 player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[*BaseClogger*]

I pay for the premium Spotify and can stream full albums, make playlists, whatever. I use it on my computer and phone. My wife uses the same account on her phone, for one $9.99 monthly fee. I have no use for an MP3 player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See ORH, this is me. I like to listen to full albums too, and I do it with Spotify. I don't think we're too far off from having access to high-speed internet everywhere we go either...

[*BaseClogger*]

The best aspect of Spotify for me is the collaberative playlists. I have several going with my friends, and it's a tremendous tool for sharing and discovering new music with your friends...

[KittyDuran]

I am right now listening to a MP3 player (Sansa) at work that has about 70+ songs that I downloaded around 3 years ago. It is also on shuffle. I can listen thru the computer of Rhapsody or radio stations if I want, but the company computers are not all that great and the speakers are so-so - also I plug in namely because I want to block out all the noise. :p My other MP3 player (also another Sansa) has no downloaded music (yet) but I have cards with songs that plays like a radio. Not for everybody, and because of that Sansa no longer makes the cards.

Now, this morning I was listening to Tune-in radio and Rhapsody on my iPhone (thru headphones as well). I only have The Beatles catalog on my iPhone (it is also on my only iPod).

[medford]

I'm not sure about Pandora and its cabilities, but you can purchase an entire album in itunes, then listen to it in order if that is your preference. You can stream that from the cloud.

But while we're on the topic, I do wonder how long "full" albums are going to be made. I come from the view point that I couldn't play an instrument to save my life, I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes when making an album and how certain songs make an album and other don't, however with a few exceptions, it seems like most albums from the 80s all the way up to today have songs that you really like, songs that are decent, songs you can skip over, songs that you love but others don't, etc... and most albums have at least 1, 2 or more songs that you don't really enjoy.

I assume when an album is made, the goal is to get approx 45-to an hour worth of music onto the album/CD so that the album is "filled". With more and more music going straight to itunes, is there a need to add "filler" songs to an album to use up as much space as possible. Is it going to be worth the production cost of a less than ideal song if there is no longer a need to add 10-15 minutes to an album full of otherwise fine songs? Will a band be willing to add that less than ideal song to fill out the album, rather choosing to spend more time working on the song and improving it rather than rushing it to the public.

[*BaseClogger*]

I assume when an album is made, the goal is to get approx 45-to an hour worth of music onto the album/CD so that the album is "filled". With more and more music going straight to itunes, is there a need to add "filler" songs to an album to use up as much space as possible. Is it going to be worth the production cost of a less than ideal song if there is no longer a need to add 10-15 minutes to an album full of otherwise fine songs? Will a band be willing to add that less than ideal song to fill out the album, rather choosing to spend more time working on the song and improving it rather than rushing it to the public.

I'm no musician, but that's not how albums are made haha (at least by artists)...

[westofyou]

Albums aren't going away, they often represent thematic attempts to convey a meaning/story, they are as succinct as the 5 song Wish you were here by Pink Floyd to the 22 song Tommy by the Who.

No Albums?

What happens to The Suburbs, American Idiot, The Crane Wife?

Those aren't songs, those are chapters in a larger story

[camisadelgolf]

I use my mp3 player as a musical instrument. I'd be reluctant to use my phone since I'd be losing a lot more than an instrument if something were to get damaged at a show.

[dougdirt]

I use my computer for music far more than I use my phone or mp3 player (which I haven't touched in years). I use my phone in the car at times and when I go for bike rides. The one problem I can see at this point though is that your phone probably doesn't have 128 GB of space for your entire music collection. You can still get mp3 players that you can hold your entire collection on.

[fearofpopvol1]

Not yet, but it may be the future. The battery life on phones are just not good enough yet to be able to absorb people emailing/texting/making calls/playing music/games without charges every few hours. And since things are going to go on the cloud, that's going to eat up battery life as well to grab that information, so again, I'd say not yet.

[dougdirt]

Not yet, but it may be the future. The battery life on phones are just not good enough yet to be able to absorb people emailing/texting/making calls/playing music/games without charges every few hours. And since things are going to go on the cloud, that's going to eat up battery life as well to grab that information, so again, I'd say not yet.

Also a very good point.

[cincyinco]

Meh, my SG3 has 64 gigs of space. Plenty for music. I use it for music in the car, streaming or stored media. Don't have too many issues with battery life. Mp3 players is think are a dying medium.

[Wonderful Monds]

I'm not sure about Pandora and its cabilities, but you can purchase an entire album in itunes, then listen to it in order if that is your preference. You can stream that from the cloud.

But while we're on the topic, I do wonder how long "full" albums are going to be made. I come from the view point that I couldn't play an instrument to save my life, I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes when making an album and how certain songs make an album and other don't, however with a few exceptions, it seems like most albums from the 80s all the way up to today have songs that you really like, songs that are decent, songs you can skip over, songs that you love but others don't, etc... and most albums have at least 1, 2 or more songs that you don't really enjoy.

I assume when an album is made, the goal is to get approx 45-to an hour worth of music onto the album/CD so that the album is "filled". With more and more music going straight to itunes, is there a need to add "filler" songs to an album to use up as much space as possible. Is it going to be worth the production cost of a less than ideal song if there is no longer a need to add 10-15 minutes to an album full of otherwise fine songs? Will a band be willing to add that less than ideal song to fill out the album, rather choosing to spend more time working on the song and improving it rather than rushing it to the public.
That might be true about the biggest name label's latest promoted "bands", the Clear Channel endorsed acts. But those who are actually interested in making music instead of just selling it, the album will always be as vital as the song. No real artist fills their record with sub optimal songs

But the Clear Channel business model will be dead sooner than later anyway.

[wolfboy]

I pay for the premium Spotify and can stream full albums, make playlists, whatever. I use it on my computer and phone. My wife uses the same account on her phone, for one $9.99 monthly fee. I have no use for an MP3 player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can run two devices on one account?

[*BaseClogger*]

You can run two devices on one account?

As long as they aren't both playing at the same time...

[bigredmechanism]

Anyone think MP3 players are going the way of CD players or that there will always be a place for them because of people like me who don't want a phone call to interrupt the music? Just curious if I'm the odd man out here.

I think they are going that way, but probably not as drastically.

I still use my iPod classic that I bought what seems like ages ago. Not that my phone couldn't do it, but I have a ton of music on my iPod that I don't have to motivation to upload it to my PC or to a cloud. (I had to wipe my hard drive a few months back, and so there is no copy of the iPod's contents on my computer anymore.)

I say not as drastically because the durability difference between an mp3 player and a CD player/CDs is crazy. When you have CDs scratching all the time, it's easy to see why switching to mp3 players took hold so well. As it was, cassette tapes lasted longer than them. Not to mention performance. The best discman I ever owned still skipped if I ran up or down stairs. That issue is completely resolved with mp3, and I'm surprised I even thought of it right now.

I don't see it being as pressing of an issue with mp3 players, though; my iPod feels and is more sturdy than my smart phone.

All in all, I think they are going obsolete, but I imagine people that already have them will continue using them for a while so long they don't break.

[reds1869]

I still use a phone that is just a phone and prefer the sound quality of physical discs. I'm apparently a traitor to my generation. I do use my iPod quite a bit but I drive a ten year old car that doesn't have a line in, so Cds still feature prominently for me.

[Roy Tucker]

I think if you can accurately predict the answer to this, you could make a lot of money. Smartphones gutted the PDA market and you needed to be very prescient to see that coming.

Moore's Law continues to hold true and smaller/faster/cheaper computing hardware and propeller-head geek developers continue to enable unforeseen developments. I've given up on predictions.

[Revering4Blue]

How life was before smartphones [Comic]

http://dottech.org/85855/how-life-was-before-smartphones-comic/