PDA

View Full Version : Apple to abandon next gen HDD based iPod...




davidjearly
Feb 7, 2007, 03:24 PM
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2476

According to this article, it has been reported that Apple is considering transitioning their entire iPod range to flash memory, possibly by the end of 2007. Given that the current maximum flash chip is 32GB, and that the current iPod with video comes in two capacities, 30GB & 80GB, is it possible that they could integrate two (or maybe more) flash chips into the one iPod to make a larger model like the 80GB version.

I'm sure the iPod software could be configured to make this not apparent to the end user and seamless, as per usual, in function.

I just can't see Apple changing their entire iPod range to flash memory if it meant abandoning the development of a larger ~60/80GB model.

David



spicyapple
Feb 7, 2007, 03:26 PM
Makes sense. Flash memory will get cheaper, especially with Apple's bulk buying power they can drastically reduce prices.

Smaller iPods with 20+ hours of battery life and absolutely no skipping. What's not to love?

I predict Apple will discontinue the regular-sized iPod models in favour of nano and mini sized iPods.

davidjearly
Feb 7, 2007, 03:41 PM
Makes sense. Flash memory will get cheaper, especially with Apple's bulk buying power they can drastically reduce prices.

Smaller iPods with 20+ hours of battery life and absolutely no skipping. What's not to love?

I predict Apple will discontinue the regular-sized iPod models in favour of nano and mini sized iPods.

Well unless they are considering using more than one flash chip in an iPod, i don't think it's the best decision until larger flash chips become available and aren't cost prohibitive.

shunpike
Feb 7, 2007, 03:43 PM
This makes absolute sense, you could have 1 x 36gb flash drive with your most listened to tracks and another 20gb (16gb + 4gb) for other less listened to stuff?

mrgreen4242
Feb 7, 2007, 03:49 PM
I predict Apple will discontinue the regular-sized iPod models in favour of nano and mini sized iPods.

The market just starting to swing to portable video players from music only players. (I know they've been available for ages, but it's just been the last year or so when the quality of the LCDs, the size of storage available, the life of batteries, and most importantly the availability of content has improved to where it's become an "everyday" type product).

Apple is clearly pushing for more media to be sold through iTMS, and putting some significant resources towards that end. Considering that, there's no way they will drop the "full sized" iPod, as watching video on a nano sized device would suck. Plus, there's not a whole lot of room in a nano for a battery that can power a full video processing chip for long enough to be useful, I would bet.

They might go all flash, they've shown they can get the best deals on memory with their massive buying quantities (remember when the 4gb nano came out the retail price of 4gbs of flash ram was near the price of the whole unit). It'll be awhile, though. People like/want their 30gb/60gb/80gb/plus iPods for video and flash RAM just isn't going to be that cheap yet.

I'm expecting to see an iPod with a hybrid drive soon, though. I figure a 60gb HDD with another 8 or 16gb flash memory as well. iTunes will show the iPod as being 60gb and will dynamically/intelligently use the 16gbs of flash memory as a preloading area, sort of like it does with RAM cache now, but on a much larger scale, and also doing it at sync time (as well as on the fly).

For example, anything you sync this session will be stored in flash memory rather than the HDD as you are probably much more likely to access it before you next sync the iPod. The last few gigs of music/video you've played will also be stored in flash, and if there's room, so will frequently played and highly rated, but not necessarily recently played data. As the iPod sees changing needs (for example, you play a song off of an album or playlist that isn't in flash memory) it will move things in and out of flash RAM.

This is already being developed for laptop computers to improve battery life and boot times, so it's only natural to expect it in the iPod. A 30gb HDD/4gb flash and 60 or 80gb HDD/8gb flash seems like something that we could expect sometime soon. It's be cool if they also offered a "long battery life" mode where you could set the iPod to ONLY use the flash ram, so you would conceivably get 2 days or something out of a single charge.

psychofreak
Feb 7, 2007, 03:53 PM
Makes sense. Flash memory will get cheaper, especially with Apple's bulk buying power they can drastically reduce prices.

Smaller iPods with 20+ hours of battery life and absolutely no skipping. What's not to love?

I predict Apple will discontinue the regular-sized iPod models in favour of nano and mini sized iPods.

What about video, will that be iPhone (with bigger memory) only?

biturbomunkie
Feb 7, 2007, 03:54 PM
about time. personally i was always reluctant to buy an ipod till the flash-based nano came out.

EGT
Feb 7, 2007, 04:07 PM
I predict Apple will discontinue the regular-sized iPod models in favour of nano and mini sized iPods.

Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. The current size strikes me as being quite close to that ideal, comfortable, yet small size. It feels good holding it in your hand. It's not so small that it feels delicate or flimsy which, in my opinion, the Nano feels like at times. Sure, the next gen. could get smaller by a few mms here and there but not too much.

And iPhone technology will most likely extend to the iPods eventually, the Nano or even the mini's form factor would definitely be too small for this.

Bring on the higher capacity Flash storage. :cool:

Mavimao
Feb 7, 2007, 04:14 PM
Hmmm, this is interesting. On one hand, I think it's a great idea: better battery life, better form factor, less skipping. On the other hand, flash can't keep up with the storage capacity of a good old fashioned hard drive.

Perhaps we'll see iPods with interchangeable flash memory via SD cards?

CEAbiscuit
Feb 7, 2007, 04:32 PM
Great idea. Put 4 flash memory chips in the iPod.. the more storage the better. Even more interesting idea - 2 flash cards - one removable. Very flexible and should not effect the design of the iPod too much.

Loge
Feb 7, 2007, 04:33 PM
I think the article is nonsense. When the nano replaced the mini, those who wanted more storage could just get a regular iPod, so that comparison does not apply.

If they are hoping to sell more video content, iPods need the capacity to store it. Maybe one day they will all be flash, but not in the timescale suggested.

Bring on 120GB widescreen iPod !

OwlsAndApples
Feb 7, 2007, 04:48 PM
Great idea. Put 4 flash memory chips in the iPod.. the more storage the better. Even more interesting idea - 2 flash cards - one removable. Very flexible and should not effect the design of the iPod too much.

mmm...removable memory...mmm...I think it's very unlikely though, the whole 'no moving external parts' :apple: mantra. :(

combatcolin
Feb 7, 2007, 07:35 PM
Fine for the Nano but i want more space!

Can't see the iPod going Flash only, HDD are getting bigger and portable Video is becoming almost standard now.

failsafe1
Feb 7, 2007, 09:25 PM
I almost pulled the trigger on a refurbed 30g iPod with video now I am glad I did not.

auxplage
Feb 7, 2007, 09:26 PM
Every year the price of flash drops.

16GB will cost around the same as 8GB did last year, so it makes sense to me.

iPodAddict
Feb 7, 2007, 09:36 PM
Not happening anytime soon. I was just checking on the prices of solid state NAND drives, and unless you're doing something at 8GB or lower, the cost is off the charts.

Yes, I know it's just NAND chips they'd be after, but relatively it's incredibly high.

Freyqq
Feb 7, 2007, 09:41 PM
i was thinking before about how they could incorporate an iphone-like touch screen into the current ipod line with hd...i'm not sure if they could. With flash they could pull it off.

tk421
Feb 7, 2007, 09:43 PM
I think the article is nonsense. When the nano replaced the mini, those who wanted more storage could just get a regular iPod, so that comparison does not apply.

If they are hoping to sell more video content, iPods need the capacity to store it. Maybe one day they will all be flash, but not in the timescale suggested.

Bring on 120GB widescreen iPod !

Agreed. I need over 20GB for my music alone, not to mention video! Flash is just not gonna cut it (yet).

Tequila Grandma
Feb 7, 2007, 09:44 PM
Silly idea. People who actually have a sizable music library are screwed if the biggest iPod is 30gb.

narco
Feb 7, 2007, 09:46 PM
I've been waiting for a 100GB iPod for a while now. I'm probably in the minority, but I'd just like to have a regular music-only iPod with high capacity. Maybe in the form of the iPhone?

gugy
Feb 7, 2007, 09:49 PM
That's not good.
I am looking for a widescreen video iPod with 120gig.
Move to small 32 gig NAND doesn't make sense for the larger iPods. Why?
Video files are larger and 32gig is not much.
I rather have the option to choose larger storage than compromise because battery life.
I hope this is bull!:mad:

DeSnousa
Feb 7, 2007, 09:49 PM
I would rather see a large 40-80 gig hardrive drastically cheaper than a flash based iPod :)

Rocketman
Feb 7, 2007, 09:52 PM
You have to take this story in context.

Samsung has announced 16GB flash.

Seagate has announced 80, 120GB microdrives. Apple has stated interest in both.

The "next platform" is the device "style" and OS of the iPhone.

In other words the Apple Tablet Nano. What is next after nano in price point? Not Nano of course. Why not SLIGHTLY thicker for a device that has a CD, a micro HD, and (gag) a second micro HD for RAID/ZFS functionality in a HANDHELD, PORTABLE, NETWORK STORAGE, NETWORK CONTENT DELIVERY, device?

:)

The future arrives 12 June 2007. Where are my damn flying cars?

Rocketman

ATN/ATNN (sosumi)

mahonmeister
Feb 7, 2007, 09:55 PM
I'd rather see a 160GB+ video iPod by the end of the year rather then a flash based video iPod. Maybe a hybrid drive would be nice for improved battery live, like another user suggested, but a pure flash drive is just to expensive for the kind of capacities video needs.

Edit:
I would rather see a large 40-80 gig hardrive drastically cheaper than a flash based iPod :)

Exactly.

joeboy_45101
Feb 7, 2007, 09:56 PM
I wouldn't buy one! It would be too much of a waste for me, I need somewhere in the range of 100GB for all my music and some videos on the side; though, I wouldn't keep the videos in the pod all the time.

HDD is the way to go when it's something of that size, imagine how much a 100GB FLASH iPod would cost. :eek: Maybe someday it will happen but I'm just not seeing at this period in history; especially when they can tap into perpendicular technology to increase drive capacity. ;)

?

xfiftyfour
Feb 7, 2007, 09:59 PM
if they discontinue large capacity iPods i'll have a bone to pick with jobs. :mad: ;)

no, seriously though, there's just no way they can market movies and all of this iTunes content without having an iPod out there to back it up. maybe someday, when those 128GB flash drives come down to earthly prices, but not until then.

i wouldn't mind seeing a hybrid, though. course i'd rather see that type of technology in our laptops - think it would make a lot more of a difference feature-wise there than in an iPod.

iPod-wise, I just want a HD-based iPhone without the network features. I don't need better battery life or slimmer form factor...

rockthecasbah
Feb 7, 2007, 10:08 PM
Not going to happen for quite some time yet. The capacity is still too little to get to the proper amount that users with larger needs to be satisfied. The intent is surely to move in this direction, Apple would not risk alienating a decent sized market of users this early in the game. There's still a bit of life left in the Hard Drive.

Jack1991
Feb 7, 2007, 10:12 PM
If anyone can fit more into something smaller, :apple: can.

With that in mind (and I don't know much about flash drives so this could just be completely impossible) perhaps :apple: will figure out a way to make 80 GB flash drives so they can continue having their large models and also make the switch to flash drives. Perhaps.

Rocketman
Feb 7, 2007, 10:14 PM
Not going to happen for quite some time yet. The capacity is still too little to get to the proper amount that users with larger needs to be satisfied.

A 80/120gb "iPhone/iPod" is not enough for the video you need. Thus you will have aliases to your network stored, purchased content and an iTunes like interface to put the most expected desired content on the local drive.

There. I said it.

Rocketman

ATN/ATNN (sosumi)

Stella
Feb 7, 2007, 10:31 PM
Can't see it happening myself, especially if there is to be an true iPod video ( widescreen ). You can't fit much video on 32gig.

Flowbee
Feb 7, 2007, 10:34 PM
I think the key part of the analyst's comment is "Apple is considering canceling its next generation HDD-based iPod design..." I'm sure they're considering it -- any responsible company considers all of its options -- but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're inclined to actually do this.

hughdogg
Feb 7, 2007, 10:35 PM
The article also mentions that it might include wi-fi. Around the house (with its 802n Apple TV/Airport Express network) the flashpod streams video and audio from all the enormous libraries we have, and when it is out of range it carries your favorite 32 GB with you (Via smart playlist or Nano like autofill feature). Maybe it would not stream it, (bad battery life), but download it from the AE network, and then the wifi turns off until you request something that it is not carrying locally. Dosen't the iPhone (reportedly) switch from wifi to cellular and back? At home it would be sort of an on-demand wifi.

Cheers,
hughdogg

____
Edit. Damn Rocketman beat me too it.

Avicdar
Feb 7, 2007, 10:36 PM
So people are unhappy with the large capacity iPods and their very respectable, decent battery life?

I hardly think so. This is only going to drive the price of the iPod up, and the relative storage potential down. For what - more battery life? I don't care what kind of discounts Apple is getting on the flash memory, its not going to compare to the pricing they get for hard drives.

An iPod model with something around 32gb capacity using flash makes some sense at a premium price, but not removing a 80+gb model from their lineup especially as the 120gb drives become available.

Analog Kid
Feb 7, 2007, 10:41 PM
Samsung has announced 16GB flash.

I think you mean 16Gb (gigabit). It sampled Jan 3. That would take 15 chips to give 30GB. Each part adds cost in the cost of the chip and each part adds cost by adding about 100 additional potential failure points in manufacturing.

That's just not going to happen.

If they want to increase battery life, they'll just go to bigger DRAM buffers or something. You don't want to Flash cache streaming media-- you know that the entire cache is going to get cycled frequently, especially if you're streaming video. The program and erase operations on Flash are slow and power hungry.

I'm guessing this guy is trying to pump up Samsung or Micron by suggesting there's going to be a surge in demand. I wish the analysts would stop trying to predict products and just leave that job to us...

Edit: just read the article again and it all smells like bunk to me.

Rocketman
Feb 7, 2007, 10:47 PM
I think you mean 16Gb (gigabit). It sampled Jan 3.


Point.

. . . and when it is out of range it carries your favorite 32 GB with you (Via smart playlist or Nano like autofill feature). Maybe it would not stream it, (bad battery life), but download it from the AE network, and then the wifi turns off until you request something that it is not carrying locally. Dosen't the iPhone (reportedly) switch from wifi to cellular and back?
Edit. Damn Rocketman beat me too it.

Yes and ha ha!

Rocketman

Newly infantile.

Lepton
Feb 7, 2007, 10:51 PM
Interesting. By the way, the front page headline of this week's EE Times says "Plummeting prices make NAND appear almost free" (NAND flash memory).

However, I want a much larger capacity than 32GB. I want the 100GB iPhone!

tveric
Feb 7, 2007, 10:54 PM
I don't buy this rumor for even one minute. There's way too many people out there that have more than 32 GB of music on their ipods, let alone music + video + photos. No way does the HDD ipod go away; at least not in the near future.

1984
Feb 7, 2007, 10:55 PM
Steve Jobs himself said just the other day in his anti-DRM manifesto that Apple's research indicates most iPods are nearly full. The solution is more capacity, not less. MacRumors states this analyst doesn't have a good track record. However, I suspect the introduction of a widescreen/touchscreen Video iPod with 80GB/120GB hard drives would allow Apple to "reinvent" the current iPod using NAND Flash and a thinner, slightly smaller case while retaining the same screen.

1984
Feb 7, 2007, 10:57 PM
Smaller iPods with 20+ hours of battery life and absolutely no skipping. What's not to love?

Drastically reduced capacity?

rainmanbk
Feb 7, 2007, 10:58 PM
I think the best possible solution for Apple may be to go the route of flash and HDD in the standard iPod models. Think of it this way. Faster, thinner iPod with let's say around 30GB of flash storage. Longer battery life, etc. But there are also many who still need/want the massive amounts of space for video content, whatever. The larger capacity iPod, say maybe 100/120GB will remain so that both parties can be pleased..

I'm not sure what the marketing would be, seeing as the larger capacity model would have less battery, but I'm pretty sure the people who don't care too much for video would be happy with longer battery life and a few millimeters shaved off.

Eidorian
Feb 7, 2007, 10:59 PM
If they release a flash based full sized iPod, I'd be in line.

15danielp
Feb 7, 2007, 11:04 PM
This makes sense to me. The ipod remains music centric and its intended use is for music and music videos.

Apple can then release a new ground breaking device (named something other then "ipod") that's used for movies and other media.

Flash for the music.

Hard Drives for the movies

Eidorian
Feb 7, 2007, 11:05 PM
This makes sense to me. The ipod remains music centric and its intended use is for music and music videos.

Apple can then release a new ground breaking device (named something other then "ipod") that's used for movies and other media.

Flash for the music.

Hard Drives for the moviesUh...you'd much rather have flash for movies. You won't have to deal with disk spin up and caching. The way Apple improves battery life on the higher end iPod is by including more cache.

15danielp
Feb 7, 2007, 11:10 PM
Uh...you'd much rather have flash for movies. You won't have to deal with disk spin up and caching. The way Apple improves battery life on the higher end iPod is by including more cache.

Of course id want flash for movies, but hard drives provide the storage we need to hold all our media. The new device can focus on being an all in one portable media hub, while the ipod can store what we want to take with us at all times.

motulist
Feb 7, 2007, 11:10 PM
I almost pulled the trigger on a refurbed 30g iPod with video now I am glad I did not.

There's ALWAYS gonna be a better iPod just around the corner because news ones come out every 6 to 8 months. If the current model of any product does what you want it to do then you should buy it now unless the new ones are gonna be out in a month or two. Just check the buyer's guide to find out the probable time new ones are coming out.

According to the buyer's guide, new iPods aren't gonna be out for around 2 and a half months, but that's only an estimate, the actual time could be longer or shorter. If you think the current iPod would be awesome to have then you should buy it now because the new ones may not be out for a few months, and even when the new ones do come out, the one you have will still be as awesome as it is today, it just won't be the newest kid on the block.

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Full_size_iPod

That's my 2 cents anyway.

Scarlet Fever
Feb 7, 2007, 11:19 PM
what if they make the 32GB model flash, and the 100GB model HDD? That'd keep everyone satisfied. :)

Digital Skunk
Feb 7, 2007, 11:20 PM
I understand the need for the flash based pods, especially with video, but come on! :confused: :confused:

Adding a larger screen to the video pod and the 1.8" HDD will severly suck the power out of a pod, but 16 GB isn't enough to really fill a pod with video and music and photos etc. 32 GB is a good start, but I would rather see a larger pod with a 4 inch screen and HDD the same design and interface of the iPhone. Then (maybe) the fungineers at Apple could load a bigger battery or something.

Flash would be good for the Nanos. :D

tveric
Feb 7, 2007, 11:21 PM
There's ALWAYS gonna be a better iPod just around the corner because news ones come out every 6 to 8 months.

Absolutely correct. Anyone who delays a purchase of an ipod that they were about to make, based on this completely bs rumor, is cracked. Bad enough to do it on a rumor in the first place, but on one that makes zero sense and has zero chance of being true? Retarded.

Digital Skunk
Feb 7, 2007, 11:26 PM
Drastically reduced capacity?

I love your signature... Forget the comment. I was being BORN:D :D

We are the new generation of Mac users. We will tell our grandkids about the fabled MacOS X.5 that started the revolution.

And how it lead to MacOS XVII.9

rtdunham
Feb 8, 2007, 12:06 AM
...The current size strikes me as being quite close to that ideal, comfortable, yet small size. It feels good holding it in your hand.


what're the differences in dimensions between the current video iPods and the iPhone?

MrCrowbar
Feb 8, 2007, 12:25 AM
I don't know why people here complain about 32 GB being not enough space for video. If you go 1080p, 32 GB are indeed just one movie, but consider the resolution of the regular video iPod (320x240) and iPhone (480x320).

Try Quicktime Pro or Handbrake and compress a whole movie is 320x240 in h2.64 in stereo sound (you don't need surround sound on your iPod, do you?). Start with ridiculously low bitrates and increase it until it looks good on your iPod. Maybe make a super high quality version as a reference. You will find out that you don't need that much space for videos.

Then there is the fact that the way you "consume" music is totally different from the way you "consume" a movie. A (good) song will be listened to over and over. Did you ever watch the same DVD twice in a month? Seriously?
Lots of storage for music makes sense, I personally like it when I don't hear the same stuff over and over when my nano is in shuffle all day. But honestly, TV shows and movies are more like a podcast: listen once, done, next.

I personally think it's ridiculous to watch videos on regular iPods, the screen is just too small and not widescreen. Subtitles must be a pain to read. The iPhone seems to be the perfect blend of small size and big screen. Well... it is basically just a big screen :p

Too bad I'm used to high def (720p) though, DVDs actually look terrible on an HDTV. Either too blurry or too compressed. Even HD TV-shows suck big time because they use old codecs and simply don't have enough bandwidth. Even the japanese Hi-Vision (analog high def) looks better. BlueRay and HD-DVD look great but it's a lot of data...

Back on topic: You don't need or want your entire movie collection on your iPod. 32 GB is plenty. There's a big Torrent file out there with ALL Simpsons episodes (from Season 1 to 17) and it was around 40 GB last time I checked...

cupique
Feb 8, 2007, 12:33 AM
I've read somewhere that iPod nanos have transfer speed of about ~5MB/s. It'll take about two hours to fill a 32GB iPod with that kind of transfer rates.

Scarlet Fever
Feb 8, 2007, 12:38 AM
I've read somewhere that iPod nanos have transfer speed of about ~5MB/s. It'll take about two hours to fill a 32GB iPod with that kind of transfer rates.

yeah that'd sound about right. remember you only really have to move 32GB of data once; after that its only a couple of dozen megs at a time.

Analog Kid
Feb 8, 2007, 12:39 AM
what're the differences in dimensions between the current video iPods and the iPhone?
The iPhone is just a tad longer, but width and depth are the same.

Multimedia
Feb 8, 2007, 12:56 AM
I want a 100GB 1.8" HD 640 x 360 widescreen Video iPod not a measley 32GB flash model. :mad:

DaveTheGrey
Feb 8, 2007, 01:57 AM
Because of the fact living in germany, I don't even know how big a TV Episode or a movie from the iTS is. Could anyone here answer this?

thnx :)

Dave

glowingstar
Feb 8, 2007, 02:00 AM
how about a combo ipod? the 80 gig hd could hold all your music, and the 16 gig flash drive in it also could store your most frequently played songs.

NewSc2
Feb 8, 2007, 02:07 AM
No duh? I can predict that soon, all laptops will move away from spinning hard drives. Maybe even those new optical hard drives. As early as 2011.

AlBDamned
Feb 8, 2007, 02:22 AM
Doubt this move will happen for sometime either but for me the best bit of this story was the report in MacRumors front page:

Of note, MacRumors has been keeping track of previous predictions and claims made by Jesse Tortora regarding upcoming Apple products, and his analyst reports have generally been inaccurate.

Ouch - I hope his boss isn't reading.... ;)

odedia
Feb 8, 2007, 02:30 AM
My prediction is that they'll bump up the capacity on the iPhone prior to release.

They did the same with the first release of the Macbook Pro: before shipping the first model, they bumped the speed up.

I think the entry level iPhone will have 8 GB and the top level will have 16GB. By June, the capacities will match the price points.

aswitcher
Feb 8, 2007, 02:37 AM
I do wonder if Apple wont want to canabalise iPhone sales so will leave HDD this year in touchscreen iPods and flash in iPhones.

gnasher729
Feb 8, 2007, 02:52 AM
Current estimates are that Apple pays about $10 per GB of flash memory, and it costs the end user about $20 per GB. That would be $1200 to replace the harddisk in the 60GB iPod with flash memory today.

I think complete replacement of harddisks is some time away. I would expect an ultra-portable notebook first with MacOS X reduced to what is absolutely necessary, no CD/DVD/harddisk, no Garageband/iDVD/iMovie, and 30 GB of flash memory.

kildraik
Feb 8, 2007, 03:23 AM
Honestly, I hope this is true.

Simply put I would rather have a device with no moving parts (so it can't be internally broken, although I take great care of my things to begin with) and much longer battery life and pay a little extra than having to deal with the worry of hard drives and the worry of dropping/failure.

It sounds like something that Apple would do: make things simpler.

I say it's true. I'd buy one.

Stridder44
Feb 8, 2007, 03:29 AM
Yeah I'm throwing in my "32 GB? are you kidding me" tip too. Here's to hoping for 120GB iPods!

MacRumorUser
Feb 8, 2007, 03:42 AM
I want a 100GB 1.8" HD 640 x 360 widescreen Video iPod not a measley 32GB flash model. :mad:

I have to say that's the only thing that will make me part with my money.

I have just over 60GB of music on my iTunes library and I've already filled my 60gb ipod. I dont want 80gb as I think it will be full within a year or so, so I want at least 100gb. To give me space for my collection to grow over the coming years.

So basically an iPhone (without the phone) and a 100gb 1.8" drive is what I really want as a 6G ipod.

If it doesnt happen and storage is smaller, then Apple wont be getting my money.

tartaruga
Feb 8, 2007, 03:50 AM
I just don't see this happening soon. At least not until they significantly increase the capacity of flash drives.

ezekielrage_99
Feb 8, 2007, 04:06 AM
Flash iPods would rock, no moving parts, no skipping and with Apple's buying power in regaurds to Flash Memory it's sounds very feasible.

This is probably a very n00by question but is it possible to get a thing that reads SD memory card for the iPod Nano like an add-on thingy :confused:

Cepe Indicum
Feb 8, 2007, 04:08 AM
A 80/120gb "iPhone/iPod" is not enough for the video you need. Thus you will have aliases to your network stored, purchased content and an iTunes like interface to put the most expected desired content on the local drive.

There. I said it.

Rocketman

ATN/ATNN (sosumi)

Rocketman, I've liked your thinking on this ever since you coined 'ATN'. It just seems to make sense in the long-term...

1) :apple:TV shows that Apple are into streaming content wirelessly.
2) WiFi connections are becoming more and more common (example for Europe: http://www.thecloud.net/).
3) Really, everyone would love it if they could get all their media content (music, TV shows, movies... but also mail and documents) anywhere, anytime.

Therefore, a smaller capacity, flash device ('ATN') - therefore allowing for longer battery life, smaller form, etc. - with a WiFi connection to all of your content stored (or aliased) on a remote server is perfect... would love to see it happen :)

displaced
Feb 8, 2007, 04:48 AM
A 80/120gb "iPhone/iPod" is not enough for the video you need. Thus you will have aliases to your network stored, purchased content and an iTunes like interface to put the most expected desired content on the local drive.

From my point of view... terrible idea! :D

The beauty of my iPod is that I have everything with me always. I can think of a song I've not heard in ages and start listening to it within seconds. I can be in the pub when conversation happens to turn to a holiday or a party or something and have the photos and cameraphone movies watchable by everyone there and then. A lot of the iPod's utility to me is that I don't have to try to predict 'expected or desired' content. It's all there waiting. The situation you're proposing is akin to the 'old days' of portable media - "ah, crap... I left that CD at home..."


1) :apple:TV shows that Apple are into streaming content wirelessly.


Streaming content wirelessly... around the home, where it makes perfect sense.


2) WiFi connections are becoming more and more common (example for Europe: http://www.thecloud.net/)
3) Really, everyone would love it if they could get all their media content (music, TV shows, movies... but also mail and documents) anywhere, anytime.


... all true, but we're nowhere near the point where it makes sense to tie a device to such networks. I'd rather have my content instantly available on the device instead of having to worry about signal coverage, strength and speed (and, indeed, cost). Until public wireless coverage is fast enough to be unnoticeable, completely ubiquitous and totally free, it's not a good enough substitute.

Therefore, a smaller capacity, flash device ('ATN') - therefore allowing for longer battery life, smaller form, etc. - with a WiFi connection to all of your content stored (or aliased) on a remote server is perfect... would love to see it happen :)

Not for a long time. Besides, the battery life equation doesn't work out - I'm not sure how constant wi-fi streaming would save an awful lot of power compared to the existing occasional spin-up of a hard drive to feed the 32MB RAM cache. Form-factor's not much of an issue when you consider the fact that the screen size is about as small as is useful for video playback. Your idea's all very Star Trek, but not particularly practical.

dernhelm
Feb 8, 2007, 05:01 AM
I'm not buying this. When they replaced the mini with the nano, they went from a top capcity of 6GB to a top capacity of 4GB. It didn't hurt them at all then, but 2GB is not as big a difference as a drop from 80GB to 32GB. That's more than half percentage wise, and Steve himdelf already said that everyone's iPods are nearly full.

In the next year or so, they need a top of the line model somewhere in the 100-120GB range, and I can see a microdrive fitting in there. But that amount of flash would simply be too expensive (even for apple).

Cepe Indicum
Feb 8, 2007, 05:17 AM
Not for a long time. Besides, the battery life equation doesn't work out - I'm not sure how constant wi-fi streaming would save an awful lot of power compared to the existing occasional spin-up of a hard drive to feed the 32MB RAM cache. Form-factor's not much of an issue when you consider the fact that the screen size is about as small as is useful for video playback. Your idea's all very Star Trek, but not particularly practical.

Hmm... interesting. I was expecting negative comments from this, but not quite this negative :o

Firstly, I agree, it is very Star Trek, but I didn't say (and didn't mean to imply) that this would happen any time soon!

Secondly, I also didn't say anything about "constant wi-fi streaming"... There would be nothing stopping you from syncing your content at home in the normal way as well... you could just activate WiFi, as-and-when.

It's all hypotheticals anyway...

My main thought is that I would love to have access to all my content, wherever I want, whenever I want, on a very portable device. And with all of the little things being introduced (or being rumoured) at the moment, I wonder if it might be getting closer.

bilbo--baggins
Feb 8, 2007, 05:24 AM
I think the current situation is best: flash memory for people that want the most compact iPod perhaps with longest battery life, and the HD for those who want the largest possible storage space.

They should only abandon HD's if/when flash can match or exceed the capacity of the largest micro HD's.

My 80GB iPod is full, I would almost certainly plan to replace it when a 100GB or 120GB version came out.

centauratlas
Feb 8, 2007, 05:26 AM
It seems like a pretty obvious prediction, EXCEPT the time frame. I'd bet they'll switch, just that it won't be complete in 2007. Its like saying, "I predict that we'll all move away from floppy disks, tape and punch cards." However, it is highly unlikely they'd go from 80GB to 32GB. Maybe to 64GB, but I'd be really surprised if they went to 32GB.

In the short term, my prediction is bigger HDD version(s) then as flash catches up they'll be phased out from the bottom up. And no removable card will happen, it just doesn't seem to fit with Apple's style (at least under Steve).

elonaso
Feb 8, 2007, 05:34 AM
I think Apple will change the line up with the next gen iPods (just speculations of course). The Nano will be for anyone who primary wants to listen to music (small, flash-based, better battery life) with capacity up to 16 gig (that's a pretty large music collection if compressed to aac/mp3).

The 6th gen Ipod (simply called the Ipod Video) however will be more towards those who wants extra features like play video content, thus a large wide screen model (hopefully a touch screen like the iPhone) with a 1,8" hard drive until flash memory can beat(/almost beat) hard drives in terms of space.

bartelby
Feb 8, 2007, 05:39 AM
I think Apple will change the line up with the next gen iPods (just speculations of course). The Nano will be for anyone who primary wants to listen to music (small, flash-based, better battery life) with capacity up to 16 gig (that's a pretty large music collection if compressed to aac/mp3).

The 6th gen Ipod (simply called the Ipod Video) however will be more towards those who wants extra features like play video content, thus a large wide screen model (hopefully a touch screen like the iPhone) with a 1,8" hard drive until flash memory can beat(/almost beat) hard drives in terms of space.


16GB!!
I have 62 GB and it increases by about 1GB a month.

I really want a high capacity music only iPod.

Porco
Feb 8, 2007, 05:40 AM
As others have said: 80GB+ flash-based iPods this year? I don't think so.

My 60GB iPod is usually about 90% full. approx. 50-60% of its capacity is music. The remaining amount I use to store video and that is a squeeze. So 32GB would be way too low for me. Introduce a widescreen iPod with 640x480 resolution and you need more capacity for video than the current iPods (assuming they are formatted for watching at 320x240).

An option for a flash-based full-size iPod is a nice idea, but I really can't see the whole line being flash-based that soon.

Trekkie
Feb 8, 2007, 06:29 AM
Smaller iPods with 20+ hours of battery life and absolutely no skipping. What's not to love?

Easy, the 50GB of Data I have on my iPod won't fit on any of the flash modules. Being in the computer industry there aren't any flash modules out there that are even close to the price point of a 30GB or 80GB iPod hard drive price for at least eighteen months.

With movies/video and my entire music collection is about 54GB. I only see that growing as the iTV comes out and my tendancy to buy videos increases. I need the space.

Scarlet Fever
Feb 8, 2007, 06:34 AM
where do you go/what do you do that requires people here to have 80GB of media?

Rychiar
Feb 8, 2007, 06:41 AM
this is retarded. i only have an iPod photo and all i'm apple to use it for is music, the 60 gig has roughtly 55 gigs on it formatted and i have 100+ gigs of music on my computer. Sure i don't need it ALL with me everywhere i got but it sure helps. i'm very indecisive and like to have my whole library to choose from. So unless they can push out a 120 gig flash chip for under $500 i don't see much future in iPod. I mean they went all flash with the iphone and look at the 8 gigs were stuck with for $600. NOT COOL:mad:

zac4mac
Feb 8, 2007, 07:00 AM
I'll join in with the naysayers here - I have half (+) my music on a 60 GB photo pod and the rest and 2 or 3 movies on a 60 GB vidPod. The vidPod is going away soon and I want a larger capacity, larger screen vidPod to replace it.

Z

MacRumorUser
Feb 8, 2007, 07:29 AM
where do you go/what do you do that requires people here to have 80GB of media?

I dont like the hassle of and the time it takes to faff around re-syncing my ipod to change my music selection on my ipod, therefore I just want all my iTunes library on my ipod.

period....

That's why i want a 100-120gb ipod.

Chupa Chupa
Feb 8, 2007, 07:47 AM
I don't know why people here complain about 32 GB being not enough space for video. If you go 1080p, 32 GB are indeed just one movie, but consider the resolution of the regular video iPod (320x240) and iPhone (480x320). ...32 GB is plenty.

Maybe it's big enough for you but my MUSIC collection outgrew my old 60GB 5G iPod even before I bought it. Just because you are not in the 80GB iPod demographic doesn't mean its storage overkill. I'm quite comfortable with my new 80GB. It allows me to have all of my music @ higher bit rates + a few movies + a tad bit of space as data storage. Anything less than 80GB is just isn't worth the purchase @ the $399 price point. I don't think Apple will do that. The best way to solve the battery life issue is to design an iPod with replaceable batteries just like every other CE device.

Chupa Chupa
Feb 8, 2007, 07:48 AM
where do you go/what do you do that requires people here to have 80GB of media?

See my post above.

The Scotsman
Feb 8, 2007, 08:02 AM
This actually makes sense to me. What you got to think about is will the true video iPod actually be classed as an iPod. It might be a new line because apple are going to market it as a PMP (portable media player) not a portable audio player like the iPods currently are marketed as.

I can see the iPod line being purely flash based and then a new line of PMPs being still hard drive based.

This would tie in with apples slogans of media content on your computer in iTunes in your pocket with iPod and now in your living room with :apple: tv.

mrgreen4242
Feb 8, 2007, 08:14 AM
I don't know why people here complain about 32 GB being not enough space for video. If you go 1080p, 32 GB are indeed just one movie, but consider the resolution of the regular video iPod (320x240) and iPhone (480x320).
Try Quicktime Pro or Handbrake and compress a whole movie is 320x240 in h2.64 in stereo sound (you don't need surround sound on your iPod, do you?). Start with ridiculously low bitrates and increase it until it looks good on your iPod. Maybe make a super high quality version as a reference. You will find out that you don't need that much space for videos.
I agree on you with that 100%... I've been fiddling with encoding movies/TV shows for my new iPod and I've found that at 320x240 h264 250kbps is adequate (plus 96 or even 64kbps AAC sound). I've been using MPEG4, though, at 300kbps (2-pass on both of course) because Handbrake+h264=too dark video.

Then there is the fact that the way you "consume" music is totally different from the way you "consume" a movie. A (good) song will be listened to over and over. Did you ever watch the same DVD twice in a month? Seriously?
Lots of storage for music makes sense, I personally like it when I don't hear the same stuff over and over when my nano is in shuffle all day. But honestly, TV shows and movies are more like a podcast: listen once, done, next.
I'll agree with you a little on this one. Some movies/shows I can watch pretty often, at least for awhile. But this fundamental difference in how media is consumed is the flaw in the iTMS' model. Songs @ $1 us a bargain - it's got lasting value that makes it a worthwhile buy. TV shows @$2 is almost like throwing away $2.

They need a rental plan, something like Netflix where you pay say $10-15 a month and can have any 3 or 5 episodes of any show on you iPod at any time. Ya, you could cruise through a season of a series in a month, but you'd have to go back to your computer to update them and you'd have to watch them through your iPod at least. Maybe put some other artificial limit on it, like 5 at a time, 25 in the month max, or you have to keep a show 24 hours before you replace it, etc. With a Netflix plan @$20/month I can cruise through a season of a TV show in a month no problem and snag a couple movies along the way as well. If Apple offered something similar in iTunes but had new content available right away they'd have something very popular on their hands. Even if shows were purchase only for a week or two and then became available on a rental plan it would be great.


I personally think it's ridiculous to watch videos on regular iPods, the screen is just too small and not widescreen. Subtitles must be a pain to read. The iPhone seems to be the perfect blend of small size and big screen. Well... it is basically just a big screen :p
I'm going to disagree with you here. I haven't watched anything on a 5G iPod yet, but I have watched plenty of things on small screens (PDAs, etc) and it's no problem at all. I would agree subtitles are just not doable, but that's a limitation I'm willing to accept. Not being widescreen is a bit of a problem, but as you point out it's so small already that it's not really a concern at that point.

Too bad I'm used to high def (720p) though, DVDs actually look terrible on an HDTV. Either too blurry or too compressed. Even HD TV-shows suck big time because they use old codecs and simply don't have enough bandwidth. Even the japanese Hi-Vision (analog high def) looks better. BlueRay and HD-DVD look great but it's a lot of data...

Ok, here's where I REALLY disagree with you. Yes, HD looks great. I have an HDTV and it's terrific. But DVD looks really good on it. Maybe you DVD player sucks, but even on my modest RCA upconverting set DVD looks really nice. A well mastered DVD has very minimal artifacting, and while there is a little grain to it I find it's barely noticeable, and when it is I almost sort of like it... reminds me of the grain in film when I go to the theatre. DVD even looks nice on my 480p DLP projector at ~96", and that's coming from my $20 cheap-o DVD player. Again, some grain but not terrible and I ALMOST prefer the grain to super smooth textures.

Also, I will clarify that I've not watched an HDDVD yet (don't care to drop the money 'till one format wins out, or dual players are the norm and are under $200). I find HD broadcast to be great though. Maybe OTA HD sucks, I don't have an antenna, just cable. The HD sports from ESPN, etc are just amazing though.

Back on topic: You don't need or want your entire movie collection on your iPod. 32 GB is plenty. There's a big Torrent file out there with ALL Simpsons episodes (from Season 1 to 17) and it was around 40 GB last time I checked...

I'll agree with you here, 32gb is plenty for an iPod. I can see why some people may want 60-80, but 32 is really sufficient for 90% of users. My concern is that 32gb of flash is not cheap. No way you'll see 32gb flash players for $200-250 (about what a 30gb HDD player runs) anytime soon. When you do, 30gb HDD players will have gone down in price accordingly. There will be a time when flash catches up to magnetic storage pricewise, but it's a ways off. Until then there's going to be a market for HDD iPods.

matticus008
Feb 8, 2007, 08:20 AM
this is retarded. i only have an iPod photo and all i'm apple to use it for is music, the 60 gig has roughtly 55 gigs on it formatted and i have 100+ gigs of music on my computer. Sure i don't need it ALL with me everywhere i got but it sure helps. i'm very indecisive and like to have my whole library to choose from.
I understand the desire to have your entire library accessible, and that's a fair wish. But if you have 55 GB of music on your person and can't find something to listen to, the problem isn't capacity. It's that you've got too much crappy music wasting space.

Porco
Feb 8, 2007, 08:41 AM
where do you go/what do you do that requires people here to have 80GB of media?

[not responding to your post only...]

All the people moaning about people don't need this or that capacity should mind their own business really. Obviously plenty of people want that capacity or else Apple wouldn't sell any 60/80GB iPods, everyone would just buy the 30GB. I'm happy for there to be lower-capacity flash-based iPods for people who are happy with 16/32GB, but that's not for me.

Maybe no-one requires to have their entire music collection and a load of video files with them on their iPod, but with that attitude why even buy an iPod? Stick with a discman and a DVD then! :rolleyes:

It's about convenience and wants, not requirements and needs, isn't it?

SiliconAddict
Feb 8, 2007, 08:46 AM
Damn well better not. I have 55GB of tracks. If they do this I'm screwed and already locked into the iPod because of iTMS DRM crap. If they do this I will sell everything Apple that I own and never look back. :mad: If they do this...

Evangelion
Feb 8, 2007, 08:46 AM
Drastically reduced capacity?

So, instead of having 30GB of space, they would have 32GB. Instead of having 80GB of space, they would have 64GB.

Is that REALLY "drastically reduced capacity"? In some causes the capacity would actually go up! Hell, I read it a while ago that price/GB of flash is rapidly approaching that of HD. And those tiny HD's are more expensive than regural HD's, so I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Flash was already cheaper per GB when compared to the HD's used in the iPod.

Hell, they might even have a 120GB HD-model for those who want something bigger, heavier, less battery-life but with more storage.

guzhogi
Feb 8, 2007, 08:48 AM
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, flash memory is more expensive per gigabyte than hard drives, so you won't be able store as much. On the other hand, better battery life and no skipping.

The thing I want to know is how much of a difference of bandwidth there is between hard drives and flash memory? I hope flash is fast enough so that movies aren't jerky.

The Scotsman
Feb 8, 2007, 08:58 AM
So, instead of having 30GB of space, they would have 32GB. Instead of having 80GB of space, they would have 64GB.

Is that REALLY "drastically reduced capacity"? In some causes the capacity would actually go up! Hell, I read it a while ago that price/GB of flash is rapidly approaching that of HD. And those tiny HD's are more expensive than regural HD's, so I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Flash was already cheaper per GB when compared to the HD's used in the iPod.

Hell, they might even have a 120GB HD-model for those who want something bigger, heavier, less battery-life but with more storage.

Are you sure they could fit two flash based 32gb drives in an iPod.

Howard Brazee
Feb 8, 2007, 09:02 AM
Every year the price of flash memory drops - and every year we hear that next year it will be cheaper than hard drives. So far every year hard drives have been getting cheaper and smaller.

The primary reason I selected my iPod was to have a bigger display - so I wouldn't need my reading glasses - but my grandchildren watch movies on it.

Apple is wanting us to watch iPod videos on our TV - which means we don't want to compress them too much.

Size matters. Capacity matters. Choice matters. I don't see Apple deciding to limit themselves in this.

The Scotsman
Feb 8, 2007, 09:07 AM
I am still very confused. I think this might be a prdeiction for way in the future. A 32gb flash based drive is way over the size of the current nano so until this size reduces and a larger capacity comes out I dont see this happening.

I am still convinced a true video iPod will still have a hard drive and be 120gb or more but will not be an iPod at all but will be renamed and iPod will only go up to 20gb for music only with video capabilites.

matticus008
Feb 8, 2007, 09:10 AM
Damn well better not. I have 55GB of tracks. If they do this I'm screwed and already locked into the iPod because of iTMS DRM crap. If they do this I will sell everything Apple that I own and never look back. :mad: If they do this...
Locked in how? Since when did you become so dramatic? As I recall, you used to be reasonable.

lukeisme09
Feb 8, 2007, 09:12 AM
ya right even if it is cheap er to make flash they are just going to jack up the prices because of the added battery life.:eek:

Evangelion
Feb 8, 2007, 09:14 AM
Are you sure they could fit two flash based 32gb drives in an iPod.

If they can fit a HD in there, why not?

gauriemma
Feb 8, 2007, 09:15 AM
I've been waiting for a 100GB iPod for a while now. I'm probably in the minority, but I'd just like to have a regular music-only iPod with high capacity. Maybe in the form of the iPhone?

You might be in the 'minority' if we're looking at the population as a whole, but among iPod users, I don't think your situation is that unusual. A lot of people who are into music have extensive collections.

My 80 GB iPod is always full, as was the 30 GB I had before I upgraded. I've got an external drive solely dedicated to MP3s. It's 160 GB, almost completely full, and most of the music is ripped from CDs that I own. And I haven't even ripped a fifth of my collection. Which means...I could, theoretically, fill an 800 GB iPod. Yikes...

jelloshotsrule
Feb 8, 2007, 09:15 AM
Then there is the fact that the way you "consume" music is totally different from the way you "consume" a movie. A (good) song will be listened to over and over. Did you ever watch the same DVD twice in a month? Seriously?
Lots of storage for music makes sense, I personally like it when I don't hear the same stuff over and over when my nano is in shuffle all day. But honestly, TV shows and movies are more like a podcast: listen once, done, next.

I personally think it's ridiculous to watch videos on regular iPods, the screen is just too small and not widescreen. Subtitles must be a pain to read. The iPhone seems to be the perfect blend of small size and big screen. Well... it is basically just a big screen :p

Back on topic: You don't need or want your entire movie collection on your iPod. 32 GB is plenty. There's a big Torrent file out there with ALL Simpsons episodes (from Season 1 to 17) and it was around 40 GB last time I checked...

i have a 60gb video ipod right now. i have about 45gb used, and it is always increasing. while you may think you know what everyone wants and how everyone views their media, you don't. is my approach typical? i don't know. probably not. but based on the responses here, many people have need/desire for more than 32gb. so, i guess you can stick to your hdtv for movies, tv, etc, but some of us are happy to use our ipods for such things at times.

Evangelion
Feb 8, 2007, 09:15 AM
Every year the price of flash memory drops - and every year we hear that next year it will be cheaper than hard drives. So far every year hard drives have been getting cheaper and smaller.

true, but flash is getting cheaper per GB faster than HD's are. So sooner or later Flash will overtake magnetic media. I actually saw a graph about thise last week (IIRC). it showed the two to be more or less equal right now.

The Scotsman
Feb 8, 2007, 09:17 AM
If they can fit a HD in there, why not?

A 32gb flash drive is currently about the same size as the current video ipod solid state memory at these capacities are bigger then hard drives.

EDIT:

Sorry not bigger same size. A 32gb flash drive is 1.8inch long same as a 80gb harddrive so no room for two.

Howard Brazee
Feb 8, 2007, 09:22 AM
Actually, I don't see a need to have my complete music collection on my iPod - at least not until the iPod software improves.

Think of the person who wants to shuffle his Christmas selection or his Children's music selection or any other playlist. iTunes/iPod doesn't quite do this conveniently - so when Christmas is over, we leave that playlist on the computer (where it gets backed up).

But some people want everything on the iPod, and they will pay for the capacity.

My pictures take more space than anything else - but they're pretty useless without the ability to have sub-folders or some other type of organizing tools. But if I could connect my iPod to a big screen and have it easy to find particular pictures - I would store them in full resolution taking up more space.

BenRoethig
Feb 8, 2007, 09:25 AM
If a 8gb Flash nano is $250, the price for a 36gb video iPod is going to be astronomical.

Rocketman
Feb 8, 2007, 09:26 AM
I don't like streaming. All of my streaming experiences have been poor.

I like store-forward. I wanted to see the video of the latest Apple ad the other day. I was nowhere near high bandwidth and of course I do not have either EDGE or Wimax. So using a computer sufficietly old IT STILL HAD A MODEM, I downloaded the video in small format and watched portions of it as it was in mid-download.

You all have experienced this I am sure. Streaming signals break up and hang. They suck. It MIGHT be slightly better with an IN HOME 802.11n network, but we will see.

If you have an iPhone (ATN :) ) and want to watch a VIDEO, chances are either you planed ahead and downloaded it before you departed a high speed connection or are downloading a short video clip for work or youtube or something.

The technology to mobile download and store multiple videos on a handheld device is just not here yet and 8Gb ain't gonna help much either, especially since that has to have a half a Gb for OS and another couple of Gb for music, etc.

WHEN wimax fully arrives and is deployed we will have, nearly free, always on, internet in our hands, everywhere, with near brodnand speeds. But until that day areives we still live in the real world. The store-forward world.

Just like usenet, email, quicktime and web pages.

Rocketman

/= streaming

mrgreen4242
Feb 8, 2007, 09:32 AM
I don't like streaming. All of my streaming experiences have been poor.

-snip-

I'm not a huge fan of streaming, but I will say that the highspeed cell services are getting pretty good. The newer Sprint stuff is, in real world conditions, as fast as early DSL (768kbps) which is pretty decent for streaming small content.

Streaming in a .11g environment is pretty perfect, so I expect .11n to just improve upon that. Again, I'm not a fan of streaming either, but the technology is improving and it's become a realistic option for the future.

That said, I'd rather have it (content) local.

guzhogi
Feb 8, 2007, 09:44 AM
If a 8gb Flash nano is $250, the price for a 36gb video iPod is going to be astronomical.

Not necessarily. If you buy 4 nanos to get 32 GB, yes, but not really if you get 1 w/ 32 GB. Don't forget that that $250 also goes to the screen, click wheel, audio chips, whatever other parts needed, the labor of putting it together, R&D costs, advertising and profit. I remember reading somewhere that the bill of materials (flash chips, screen, everything physical) actually costs like $150 or something. So Apple might sell a 32 GB Nano for $299 or something.

MacRumorUser
Feb 8, 2007, 09:46 AM
Is it not just likely they will offer 2 different ipods. one based on solid state and one with a hdd ?

JGowan
Feb 8, 2007, 09:48 AM
"We believe that ... blah blah blah" -- some guy. Who cares what this person is SPECULATING?! This is some big news. If Apple is truly considering this, they'd be keeping it closer to the vest than this. Apple knows that it can't EDUCATE the world that BIGGER IPODS ARE BETTER and then snatch them away and say "The smaller storage is really better now, trust us."

We might see the 6G iPod come out with the smaller size flash drives (think iPhone size [hopefully bigger screen that's truer to 16:9]) -- but they'll keep making the 5.5G iPod and maybe even increase its harddrive size. Maybe we'll see a 100GB 5.5G iPod along side the new 6G that's 32GB.

I seriously doubt they'll completely remove the current form factor, it's been too popular. Of course, I thought the MINI would stick around too. Of course, in a very big way, it's back now and just named NANO.

My 2Ę

vi2867
Feb 8, 2007, 09:49 AM
I have been waiting for this new iPod for over a year now. I think Apple has come up with a full screen iPod, but for several reasons did not release the product.

The iPod is their number one product, and if there is any issues they are just not going to release it. I think the two main concerns are battery life and content. I just does not make any sense to release a full screen iPod that has a battery life of 3.5 hours, and 250 movies available for download through iTunes store.

When those two issues are addressed and improved, then we will see this supposedly full screen iPod. Also, don't expect to see the full screen iPod under 400.00...:(

syklee26
Feb 8, 2007, 09:51 AM
i have a different take....

the reason I don't see Apple going away with HD is the fact that there is not much merit design-wise. Let's say Apple goes for ultrathin flash-based iPod. Wouldn't it be so thin that it might bend?

and if Apple keeps the iPod size same but put in flash drive instead of HD, what goods would it bring besides Apple losing profits because they use more expensive components by using flash?

Also, people seem to forget that when Apple went away from mini to nano, actual price per GB increased because 4gb nano was originally priced at $249, same price of 8gb mini. In this logic, Apple might sell 16gb flash video iPod at $249 (by dropping nano price) or $299 (by not dropping nano price). 32gb flash would be at $349 or $399. Who in the right mind would pay more to get less?

psychofreak
Feb 8, 2007, 09:53 AM
i have a different take....

the reason I don't see Apple going away with HD is the fact that there is not much merit design-wise. Let's say Apple goes for ultrathin flash-based iPod. Wouldn't it be so thin that it might bend?

and if Apple keeps the iPod size same but put in flash drive instead of HD, what goods would it bring besides Apple losing profits because they use more expensive components by using flash?

Also, people seem to forget that when Apple went away from mini to nano, actual price per GB increased because 4gb nano was originally priced at $249, same price of 8gb mini. In this logic, Apple might sell 16gb flash video iPod at $249 (by dropping nano price) or $299 (by not dropping nano price). 32gb flash would be at $349 or $399. Who in the right mind would pay more to get less?

The 8GB nano costs the same as the 30 GB iPod...

BornAgainMac
Feb 8, 2007, 09:55 AM
Remember the old comment by Jobs about how people end up having the flash based mp3 player in a drawer and don't use it. A lot as changed.

vi2867
Feb 8, 2007, 09:59 AM
i have a different take....

the reason I don't see Apple going away with HD is the fact that there is not much merit design-wise. Let's say Apple goes for ultrathin flash-based iPod. Wouldn't it be so thin that it might bend?

and if Apple keeps the iPod size same but put in flash drive instead of HD, what goods would it bring besides Apple losing profits because they use more expensive components by using flash?

Also, people seem to forget that when Apple went away from mini to nano, actual price per GB increased because 4gb nano was originally priced at $249, same price of 8gb mini. In this logic, Apple might sell 16gb flash video iPod at $249 (by dropping nano price) or $299 (by not dropping nano price). 32gb flash would be at $349 or $399. Who in the right mind would pay more to get less?

Then, why are we going to spend 499 and 599 for an iPhone with 4gb and 8gb capacity...

Apple knows that people will buy their products at a higher price, since their products are better than any other products in the market today.

matticus008
Feb 8, 2007, 10:00 AM
Not necessarily. If you buy 4 nanos to get 32 GB, yes, but not really if you get 1 w/ 32 GB. Don't forget that that $250 also goes to the screen, click wheel, audio chips, whatever other parts needed, the labor of putting it together, R&D costs, advertising and profit. I remember reading somewhere that the bill of materials (flash chips, screen, everything physical) actually costs like $150 or something. So Apple might sell a 32 GB Nano for $299 or something.
More than half of the materials cost is the memory, and one must realize that capacity-price does not scale linearly. If 8GB costs $80, that doesn't mean that 32GB costs $320. 32GB could cost easily $400, $450, or more.

Look at RAM, hard drives, or even CPU clock speeds. The top end has an accelerated pricing curve, which is generally used to offset slimmer margins lower down the chain. Without the "bleeding edge" markup, every price would be higher to compensate.

gkarris
Feb 8, 2007, 10:14 AM
Not necessarily. If you buy 4 nanos to get 32 GB, yes, but not really if you get 1 w/ 32 GB. Don't forget that that $250 also goes to the screen, click wheel, audio chips, whatever other parts needed, the labor of putting it together, R&D costs, advertising and profit. I remember reading somewhere that the bill of materials (flash chips, screen, everything physical) actually costs like $150 or something. So Apple might sell a 32 GB Nano for $299 or something.

But, this memory is still relatively new.

I just passed 30 Gigs on my 60 Gig iPod with music and video. I expect to fill the 60 Gig - just in time for a newer, higher capacity iPod (hopefully with a widescreen).

How much is a 60 Gig or 80 Gig flash iPod gonna cost???

MrCrowbar
Feb 8, 2007, 10:33 AM
I'm going to disagree with you here. I haven't watched anything on a 5G iPod yet, but I have watched plenty of things on small screens (PDAs, etc) and it's no problem at all. I would agree subtitles are just not doable, but that's a limitation I'm willing to accept. Not being widescreen is a bit of a problem, but as you point out it's so small already that it's not really a concern at that point.

Ok, here's where I REALLY disagree with you. Yes, HD looks great. I have an HDTV and it's terrific. But DVD looks really good on it. Maybe you DVD player sucks, but even on my modest RCA upconverting set DVD looks really nice. A well mastered DVD has very minimal artifacting, and while there is a little grain to it I find it's barely noticeable, and when it is I almost sort of like it... reminds me of the grain in film when I go to the theatre. DVD even looks nice on my 480p DLP projector at ~96", and that's coming from my $20 cheap-o DVD player. Again, some grain but not terrible and I ALMOST prefer the grain to super smooth textures.


First of all, thank you for this constructive reply.

My roommate borrowed me his iPod video for 2 weeks (believe it or not) and I played aroudn with it quite a lot. It's cool to be able to watch the Simpsons while sitting on the john. You can read the credits at the end, but it is kinda hard to actually watch a 22 minute episode on the iPod. That may be me, I just don't like it. It's great for short clips, video podcasts and pron I guess (ever seen high def pron? It's amazing! :rolleyes: ).

I just said DVDs look pretty bad compared to high def. They even have CRT screens that do 720p now, to me it looks way better than any flat panel. Only problem is, the don't make those CRTs in big.

Loge
Feb 8, 2007, 10:34 AM
Remember the old comment by Jobs about how people end up having the flash based mp3 player in a drawer and don't use it. A lot as changed.

Yes indeed it has - those players typically came in sizes like 64MB or 128 MB :p

The Scotsman
Feb 8, 2007, 10:35 AM
I think the title of this thread is wrong. I do not read anything about apple abandoning next gen hdd iPods. i can see that they may make all there music players ie iPods flash based but not on a high capacity level. EG up to 20gb nanos for music only. I do think however apple are going to bring out a true video device but not call it or put it in the iPod category. Jobs is very critical when talking about iPods,. He states (often) they are music players with other capabilites eg photos, videos. I think the true video iPod will be called something different and it will eat into the PMP (portable media player) market and be a different product line alltogether. and in addition still be hard drive based. So guys worrying about their high capacity ipods not having a future I would not. I have 80gb Ipod. I record tv shows and have many photos and tunes and am at 74gb full. I am not worried I am just waiting for widescreen high capacity device but I do not expect it to be called an Ipod.

gkarris
Feb 8, 2007, 10:55 AM
I think the title of this thread is wrong. I do not read anything about apple abandoning next gen hdd iPods. i can see that they may make all there music players ie iPods flash based but not on a high capacity level. EG up to 20gb nanos for music only. I do think however apple are going to bring out a true video device but not call it or put it in the iPod category. Jobs is very critical when talking about iPods,. He states (often) they are music players with other capabilites eg photos, videos. I think the true video iPod will be called something different and it will eat into the PMP (portable media player) market and be a different product line alltogether. and in addition still be hard drive based. So guys worrying about their high capacity ipods not having a future I would not. I have 80gb Ipod. I record tv shows and have many photos and tunes and am at 74gb full. I am not worried I am just waiting for widescreen high capacity device but I do not expect it to be called an Ipod.

Agreed. Apple has already started, "AppleTV" to show that it's a media device...

Maybe a portable video device to match would be "ApplePV"? Maybe to close to "TV"...

mrgreen4242
Feb 8, 2007, 11:08 AM
First of all, thank you for this constructive reply.

My roommate borrowed me his iPod video for 2 weeks (believe it or not) and I played aroudn with it quite a lot. It's cool to be able to watch the Simpsons while sitting on the john. You can read the credits at the end, but it is kinda hard to actually watch a 22 minute episode on the iPod. That may be me, I just don't like it. It's great for short clips, video podcasts and pron I guess (ever seen high def pron? It's amazing! :rolleyes: ).

I just said DVDs look pretty bad compared to high def. They even have CRT screens that do 720p now, to me it looks way better than any flat panel. Only problem is, the don't make those CRTs in big.

My CRT does 1080i (30-inch) and will upconvert 720p to 1080i (albeit crappily). I'm not sure if there are any native 720p CRTs on the market. Could be, but seems unlikely they'd bother. I used to watch all kinds of shows on my PDA (3.5" screen, same res as the iPod, though) and really enjoyed it.

The real key, imo, is not so much the size of the screen but the comfort of the setup. If you have to hold the iPod in front of you for 22 minutes then it's going to suck. If you have a nice setup where you can set the iPod down and have it held up at the correct angle and a comfortable viewing distance then it's not all that bad (or wasn't with the PDA anyways). I rigged up a little cardboard holder for my PDA to get the right angles/distance on my desk at work when I was using it to watch shows and it was fine. The iPod has a case that actually fold out into a similar holder for it.

Anyways, back to the original topic, of DVDs vs HD... your absolutely right that HD looks superior to DVD. I just think the difference is small enough that the DVD still has use and plenty of life left in it.

Howard Brazee
Feb 8, 2007, 11:10 AM
true, but flash is getting cheaper per GB faster than HD's are. So sooner or later Flash will overtake magnetic media. I actually saw a graph about thise last week (IIRC). it showed the two to be more or less equal right now.


For some sizes, but not for other sizes. You don't see people replacing their hard drives in computers yet. I agreed with Jerry Pournelle way before Byte died, that hard drives would be replaced soon. We were wrong. Maybe this time we're close.

Howard Brazee
Feb 8, 2007, 11:14 AM
Is it not just likely they will offer 2 different ipods. one based on solid state and one with a hdd ?

Certainly - but the difference will blur - right now there's a buffer between the hard drive and the song. I can see a power savings in copying recent or often played songs from the hard drive to flash memory before playing.

parrothead
Feb 8, 2007, 11:21 AM
I think it would be a very bad idea to move to iPods with less storage than they have now. People have large music/video libraries which are only going to get larger. I sure hope they don't stop sellin the larger hard drive iPods I wouldn't be able to fit all my music on anymore, and really isn't that the whole point?

nemaslov
Feb 8, 2007, 11:54 AM
"It's the music stupid...." My 80GB is full, Bring on 100, 120, 250 GB iPods so I can load in more of music to take with me...everywhere!!! I doubt that would be flash based.

MattG
Feb 8, 2007, 11:56 AM
I've been waiting for a 100GB iPod for a while now. I'm probably in the minority, but I'd just like to have a regular music-only iPod with high capacity. Maybe in the form of the iPhone?

Make that two of us!

guzhogi
Feb 8, 2007, 11:57 AM
More than half of the materials cost is the memory, and one must realize that capacity-price does not scale linearly. If 8GB costs $80, that doesn't mean that 32GB costs $320. 32GB could cost easily $400, $450, or more.

Look at RAM, hard drives, or even CPU clock speeds. The top end has an accelerated pricing curve, which is generally used to offset slimmer margins lower down the chain. Without the "bleeding edge" markup, every price would be higher to compensate.

Very true. I just wanted to point out that the flash chips aren't the only thing that add to cost.

SiliconAddict
Feb 8, 2007, 12:11 PM
Locked in how? Since when did you become so dramatic? As I recall, you used to be reasonable.

Simple. IF Apple decides to lower their iPod line to a smaller size what choices do I have because of Fairplay DRM? I have to stick with Apple because all my DRM tracks can't be transfered over to a competitors device. OR can't be without losing already marginal quality. (Read: Burn to CD and rip is not an option.) I'm reasonable as long as Apple remains reasonable. Dropping their current iPod storage space by that much is not reasonable.

sishaw
Feb 8, 2007, 12:21 PM
I predict that, eventually, iPods will be surgically implanted with direct connections to the visual and auditory processing centers of our brains. You will be able to hear a song or watch a video simply by thinking about it. The only external evidence will be a small plastic circle on your forehead--the cover for the Bluetooth and wi-fi antennae.

jhedges3
Feb 8, 2007, 12:30 PM
I don't like streaming. All of my streaming experiences have been poor.

I donít like streaming either, but at this point weíre only considering it in this context because a string of hypothetical things may happen. If Apple moves to flash by the end of 2007. If the capacity is smaller, which as suggested, they may not be if multiple drives are combined. If they rely on Wifi for streaming.

In any case, it would be surprising if they went that route with iPods if the streaming it relied on had the same drawbacks that plague other applications of streaming.

If you have an iPhone (ATN :) )

Rocketman, whatís up with your persistent use of that acronym for the iPhone? I do love nearly everything you say on MR. But it seems brutal and unfair to use such an acronym without giving ignorant readers, like myself, any hint as to what each of the letters represent.

If I used the acronym NMDA for N-methyl-D-aspartic acid and if I, as convention dictates, used it in full (defined the acronym), everything would be cool for the rest of that post. But if I made a new post I would have to say again, N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA), instead of just using it or without clarifying what the relationship between the two is.

WHEN wimax fully arrives and is deployed we will have, nearly free, always on, internet in our hands, everywhere, with near brodnand speeds.

Will we see WiMAX before CDMA2000 and UMTS? It seems like a pretty serious trickle down will have to take place before itís widely deployed. And certainly a while before itís in any iPod. Why nearly free?

Just like usenet, email, quicktime and web pages.

Rocketman

/= streaming

Why always sign your posts? Isnít the space that says Rocketman macrumors 6502 and shows your avatar enough? Plus it smacks of immodesty. Perhaps rocket scientists donít like applying the principle of redundancy reduction to their personal communications.

TurboLag
Feb 8, 2007, 12:40 PM
This maked perfect sence. A 32 Gb iPod for $2499. Ill by one.:rolleyes:

ijimk
Feb 8, 2007, 12:51 PM
while i do agree longer battery life is important I believe having variety on my iPod is my main feature i like. I have a 60 gig and it is nice having my whole music library and a few movies with me. I sure hope they don't abandon the non flash based iPods until they at least hit the 80 gig mark which i don't see happening for some time.

modul8tr
Feb 8, 2007, 12:54 PM
Rocketman, whatís up with your persistent use of that acronym for the iPhone? I do love nearly everything you say on MR. But it seems brutal and unfair to use such an acronym without giving ignorant readers, like myself, any hint as to what each of the letters represent.

If I used the acronym NMDA for N-methyl-D-aspartic acid and if I, as convention dictates, used it in full (defined the acronym), everything would be cool for the rest of that post. But if I made a new post I would have to say again, N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA), instead of just using it or without clarifying what the relationship between the two is.



ATN = Apple, Tablet, Nano

MrCrowbar
Feb 8, 2007, 01:07 PM
ATN = Apple, Tablet, Nano

Please, everyboady, stop using "ATN". Everything from iPhone to :apple: Phone to "the thing they showed at MacWorld" is fine. But the ATN Acronym is just wrong, it's not a Tablet (no stylus) and too big to be called a Nano.

Clive At Five
Feb 8, 2007, 01:12 PM
Apple will not do this until Flash has caugh up more significantly with Micro HDD on $/gb and probably gb/sq in. Micro HDD still destroys flash when it comes to these things. Sure speed is an issue, as is reliability, but no one is going to pay $3000 for a 32GB Flash iPod for the sole advantages of quicker song loading, higher reliability, and 3 mm thinner.

-Clive

modul8tr
Feb 8, 2007, 01:14 PM
Please, everyboady, stop using "ATN". Everything from iPhone to :apple: Phone to "the thing they showed at MacWorld" is fine. But the ATN Acronym is just wrong, it's not a Tablet (no stylus) and too big to be called a Nano.

I was just answering jhedges question.

People seem to think of the iPhone as an ATN from what I've read and as I understand it, this is why the acronym was adopted.

Personally I think it's fine to use it. But, it's becoming tiresome that so many people are using the acronym, without explaining what it means.

Clive At Five
Feb 8, 2007, 01:15 PM
Please, everyboady, stop using "ATN". Everything from iPhone to :apple: Phone to "the thing they showed at MacWorld" is fine. But the ATN Acronym is just wrong, it's not a Tablet (no stylus) and too big to be called a Nano.

People just want to make it what it isn't. They want a Mac Tablet so bad that they're desperate. Thus they change the name of the already existing product, iPhone, to reflect their desparity.

-Clive

Grakkle
Feb 8, 2007, 01:45 PM
I would rather see a large 40-80 gig hardrive drastically cheaper than a flash based iPod :)

Well, if the iPod does indeed transition to flash then you should be able to pick up a HD pod much cheaper.

That's my plan, actually - wait until the current iPods are superseded by a full-video or flash (or both) pod and then buy one of the current models at close-out price.

mrgreen4242
Feb 8, 2007, 01:50 PM
Well, if the iPod does indeed transition to flash then you should be able to pick up a HD pod much cheaper.

That's my plan, actually - wait until the current iPods are superseded by a full-video or flash (or both) pod and then buy one of the current models at close-out price.

The current price on refurbed 30gb 5G's is already close to rock bottom close out. $180 for a unit that was $299 originally it pretty cheap. I was going to hold out for the 6G to get a 5G as well, but decided they weren't going to get that much cheaper than they already are. Lowest I could see the 30GB is $149...

dernhelm
Feb 8, 2007, 01:58 PM
I was just answering jhedges question.

People seem to think of the iPhone as an ATN from what I've read and as I understand it, this is why the acronym was adopted.

Personally I think it's fine to use it. But, it's becoming tiresome that so many people are using the acronym, without explaining what it means.

What's tiresome is one particular user using it over and over again in a desperate attempt to extend his 15 minutes of fame...

sosumi :rolleyes:

morespce54
Feb 8, 2007, 02:03 PM
Agreed. I need over 20GB for my music alone, not to mention video! Flash is just not gonna cut it (yet).

Even if I don't have (much) videos, I currently use 30GB for my Music... I wound't like to be forced to bring two iPods on vacation... :( ;)

guzhogi
Feb 8, 2007, 02:05 PM
This maked perfect sence. A 32 Gb iPod for $2499. Ill by one.:rolleyes:

a 32 GB iPod for $2499? It better be able to play movies like the holodeck in Star Trek for that much! I'm sure you mean $249, right?

joeshell383
Feb 8, 2007, 02:06 PM
Steve Jobs himself said just the other day in his anti-DRM manifesto that Apple's research indicates most iPods are nearly full. The solution is more capacity, not less. MacRumors states this analyst doesn't have a good track record. However, I suspect the introduction of a widescreen/touchscreen Video iPod with 80GB/120GB hard drives would allow Apple to "reinvent" the current iPod using NAND Flash and a thinner, slightly smaller case while retaining the same screen.

Holiday 2007:

iPod Shuffle- 2 GB (FLASH)
iPod Nano- 8,16 GB (FLASH)
iPhone 8,16 GB (FLASH)
iPod Classic (same as 5.5G) 80,120 GB (HDD)
iPod (6G- touchscreen) 32 GB (FLASH)

dernhelm
Feb 8, 2007, 02:07 PM
Even if I don't have (much) videos, I currently use 30GB for my Music... I wound't like to be forced to bring two iPods on vacation... :( ;)

Same problem here. If I am anywhere near enough my collection that I can stream it, I won't be watching it on my iPod. The value of an iPod for me is to make my collection portable. Not some small portion of my collection, not the favorites in my collection, but my whole collection - or near enough to my whole collection that I don't notice the missing bits.

A nano or shuffle is great for a jog, but I want something more for long plane rides, 2 week business trips and vacations.

Telp
Feb 8, 2007, 02:31 PM
It's fine that Apple wants to work more with flash, they should be, it is the future, but they can't give up their harddrive ipods either cuz right now flash doesnt have the capability to hold the archive of music people want. Apple needs to be able to do both, possilby give more options, maybe get ride of the 2 gig flash and just make 4 8 and 16 gig or somehing like that

chabig
Feb 8, 2007, 02:37 PM
a 32 GB iPod for $2499? It better be able to play movies like the holodeck in Star Trek for that much! I'm sure you mean $249, right?

No. He meant $2499, referring to the price of flash memory. Flash can't replace hard drives until the cost per gigabyte comes down. And by then, hard drive will be cheaper too. Flash has a lot going for it, but cost (as compared to rotating memory) is not one of them.

Chris

sishaw
Feb 8, 2007, 02:41 PM
a 32 GB iPod for $2499? It better be able to play movies like the holodeck in Star Trek for that much! I'm sure you mean $249, right?

Sarcasm, people, sarcasm. Go read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift, then come back.

guzhogi
Feb 8, 2007, 02:54 PM
No. He meant $2499, referring to the price of flash memory. Flash can't replace hard drives until the cost per gigabyte comes down. And by then, hard drive will be cheaper too. Flash has a lot going for it, but cost (as compared to rotating memory) is not one of them.

Chris

A 32 GB flash card costs $2499?!? :eek: That's a lot! I know I can get a 2 GB USB flasg drive at Microcenter for like $40, so I'm just really surprised by how steep the price curve gets for 32 GB.

Edit: just looked www.dealram.com and saw that an 8 GB compact flash card is $89 and a 16 GB Compactflash card is $589. Holy guacamole! (I work at an elementary school so I have to watch my language.) Geez! Usually on that site, when you double the size of a flash drive, you double the cost plus or minus a few bucks. But that's more than 5x the cost! I just didn't know that. You learn something everyday. Maybe Apple can cut costs by having 4 8 GB flash cards or something?

Rocketman
Feb 8, 2007, 03:10 PM
I donít like streaming either, but at this point weíre only considering it in this context because a string of hypothetical things may happen. If Apple moves to flash by the end of 2007. If the capacity is smaller, which as suggested, they may not be if multiple drives are combined. If they rely on Wifi for streaming.

It comes down to differentiating between three things here:

1. Live streaming (almost always sucks)
2. Live down load with local cache (similar to how Quicktime, iTV works)
3. Load slow, play fast (Bluetooth, wifi, wimax, edge, firewire, usb, ethernet) (iPod).

Current large capacity iPods assume you need your entire music collection on the PORTABLE device.

Current iPod Nano's assume your main collection is on another device and you load "playlists" onto the portable device occasionally. This paradigm is what Apple is gravitating toward on all portable devices. I endorse it too.

A third option is a device whose local storage is used only for cache (Quicktime model), so you can, say, play enough content to consume most of your batery life and not much less, or maybe only offer skip protection of 20-60 minutes.


Rocketman, whatís up with your persistent use of that acronym for the iPhone? I do love nearly everything you say on MR. But it seems brutal and unfair to use such an acronym without giving ignorant readers, like myself, any hint as to what each of the letters represent.

I made a post some time ago in another thread where people were complaining abot the price of the iPhone. I pointed out that iPhone, while the marketing name of the device, is only ONE application on a multi-application device which ships with several killer applications. More later. This is a new "ecosystem". Mac was an "ecosystem" with numerous hardware and feature implementations over the years. iPod was an "ecosystem" which while more closed was the basis for several device implementations.

iPhone as a multi-aplication device with a "new" OS and justifies an "ecosystem catagory".

I called it ATN for Apple Tablet Nano. I happen to like literal, descriptive names. Nobody has "adopted" my "coined term", although I would have no objection to it. It serves my very self-centered purpose of enlightening those readers in the know about the term, the iPhone is WAYYY more than a mere iPhone. It is a PORTABLE, HANDHELD, TABLET FORMAT device with MULTI-TOUCH operation and WIRELESS access via Wifi 802.11 presumably a,b,f,n now and Wimax 802.16 later, bluetooth and a dock.

So ATN=Apple Tablet Nano.

That top level description of this first implementation within an ecosystem implies there might be a second, and a third, etc. I have been stating ATNN Apple Tablet Not Nano is what we saw with the bottom CD patent and the announcements by Seagate of microdrives with 80 and 120 gb capacities. I could be wrong. Apple sold Asteroid when it was disclosed.

Will we see WiMAX before CDMA2000 and UMTS? It seems like a pretty serious trickle down will have to take place before itís widely deployed. And certainly a while before itís in any iPod. Why nearly free?

Why always sign your posts? Isnít the space that says Rocketman macrumors 6502 and shows your avatar enough? Plus it smacks of immodesty. Perhaps rocket scientists donít like applying the principle of redundancy reduction to their personal communications.

The cellular protocols you cite are already deployed but only regionally due to proprietary issues. Wimax is an open standard several carriers, Sprint included, have stated they would deploy next to cellular since the ranges are similar to analog cellular, albiet at higher data bitrates and better overall bandwidth.

I sign my posts probably because it is a holdover from usenet and email. Call it a habbit. I have been on the internet since 1992 and online before that as early as 1981. I am old and stuck in my ways. Sorry.

Rocketman

no sig file here :)

Rocketman
Feb 8, 2007, 03:12 PM
Please, everyboady, stop using "ATN". Everything from iPhone to :apple: Phone to "the thing they showed at MacWorld" is fine. But the ATN Acronym is just wrong, it's not a Tablet (no stylus) and too big to be called a Nano.

Um, it IS a tablet that uses your FINGER as a stylus because Apple is that insanely great!

Rocketman :)

mrgreen4242
Feb 8, 2007, 03:18 PM
I made a post some time ago in another thread where people were complaining abot the price of the iPhone. I pointed out that iPhone, while the marketing name of the device, is only ONE application on a multi-application device which ships with several killer applications. More later. This is a new "ecosystem". Mac was an "ecosystem" with numerous hardware and feature implementations over the years. iPod was an "ecosystem" which while more closed was the basis for several device implementations.

iPhone as a multi-aplication device with a "new" OS and justifies an "ecosystem catagory".

I respectfully disagree. If Apple had made the iPhone the new Newton, and sold it in a few configurations - say, The Newton which would be like the iPhone we have now, minus the cell phone integration, The Newton iPod edition which would be the same as the regular Newton, but with a 30gb HDD and the thicker/larger form factor that would need, and the Newton iPhone edition, which would be what the iPhone is now - then I would agree that it needs a whole new classification for what it is.

As it is, Apple has completely linked the iPhone to a cellular PHONE service/plan. As such, it's a cell phone. It's a nice one, with some really cool PDA like and iPod like features, but none the less it is a PHONE. Period. Not an PDA. Not a tablet computer. Not anything but a really cool cell phone. Deal with it. The fact that there COULD be a product which is similar to the iPhone but isn't doesn't mean you can classify the iPhone as anything but a phone.

gnasher729
Feb 8, 2007, 03:27 PM
a 32 GB iPod for $2499? It better be able to play movies like the holodeck in Star Trek for that much! I'm sure you mean $249, right?

Estimated cost of flash to Apple is $10 per GB, so $320 for 32GB. Apple wants to make profit, sales people want to make profit, taxman wants his cut, so make it $640 for the end user. Or $480 more than a current 8GB iPod.

iNate
Feb 8, 2007, 03:45 PM
How about a 120GB (hard drive) widescreen video iPod for $350 and a 16GB flash widescreen video iPod for $250? People with larger music libraries would, of course, get the 120GB, and people with smaller libraries could get the 16GB flash one and enjoy the battery life and speed benefits. Not sure what would happen with the nano product line, though.

jettredmont
Feb 8, 2007, 03:56 PM
I'd rather see a 160GB+ video iPod by the end of the year rather then a flash based video iPod. Maybe a hybrid drive would be nice for improved battery live, like another user suggested, but a pure flash drive is just to expensive for the kind of capacities video needs.


I believe that the current iPod hard drives are essentially hybrid drives (meaning, hard drive plus a large flash read-ahead cache). That's why you get significantly better battery life if you don't skip past songs when playing. Note that they aren't "integrated" hybrid drives, but the concept is essentially the same.

Eidorian
Feb 8, 2007, 03:59 PM
How about a 120GB (hard drive) widescreen video iPod for $350 and a 16GB flash widescreen video iPod for $250? People with larger music libraries would, of course, get the 120GB, and people with smaller libraries could get the 16GB flash one and enjoy the battery life and speed benefits. Not sure what would happen with the nano product line, though.The Nano would get cheaper. :p

I believe that the current iPod hard drives are essentially hybrid drives (meaning, hard drive plus a large flash read-ahead cache). That's why you get significantly better battery life if you don't skip past songs when playing. Note that they aren't "integrated" hybrid drives, but the concept is essentially the same.You are correct. The iPod typically has 32 MB of cache to store read ahead. There is 64 MB on the higher end models.

Playlists are cached ahead and lead to greater battery life. You'll notice that when a 5/5.5G model plays a video the hard drive is only active when you start to play the video or you skip around it. It's cached otherwise.

Maxwell Smart
Feb 8, 2007, 04:02 PM
I just can't see this happening within the next 2 years. Eventually? Of course, but right now doing it would be foolish and cost-prohibitive.

mrgreen4242
Feb 8, 2007, 04:03 PM
I believe that the current iPod hard drives are essentially hybrid drives (meaning, hard drive plus a large flash read-ahead cache). That's why you get significantly better battery life if you don't skip past songs when playing. Note that they aren't "integrated" hybrid drives, but the concept is essentially the same.

It's not flash, it's some sort of RAM. The difference is kinda of petty, except that I believe flash memory is much cheaper per MB than RAM is, which is why there's only a few megs of cache (32/64 as mentioned) as opposed to gigs.

jettredmont
Feb 8, 2007, 04:19 PM
where do you go/what do you do that requires people here to have 80GB of media?

Where do you go / what do you do that requires you to have music with you, period?

It's not about "requires". It's about "desires". A primary draw of the full-size iPod has always been that you can put all of your music on it, and play any song you fancy at any time you fancy to hear it.

Personally, I could get by with 32GB of iPod today, as I'm doing just fine with 40GB and my music library is stable at about 26-30 GB. But if I get a new iPod, I want to start watching videos on it too when stuck places, and for that my wife's 60GB is barely adequate. Granted, video isn't to the point of "have everything with you at all times", but I'd like a decent collection of vid-casts and shows to choose from, especially when a good portion of those will be skipped over because I didn't like them.

Could I live with a 32GB device? Sure. It'd just be a lot more up-front work, a lot more often that I'm stuck with nothing good to watch, and in general would make me a significantly less happy customer.

matticus008
Feb 8, 2007, 05:15 PM
Simple. IF Apple decides to lower their iPod line to a smaller size what choices do I have because of Fairplay DRM? I have to stick with Apple because all my DRM tracks can't be transfered over to a competitors device. OR can't be without losing already marginal quality. (Read: Burn to CD and rip is not an option.) I'm reasonable as long as Apple remains reasonable. Dropping their current iPod storage space by that much is not reasonable.
I still don't understand. Will your iPod spontaneously combust when new ones come out?

Odds are that if they do drop in capacity for a few months (which is an almost certainly not-gonna-happen, at least to the 80GB), they'll exceed that capacity within a year. Remember the nano?

Moreover, you're not locked into anything with FairPlay that you haven't been for decades, and you can't really call it "lock in" when you opened the door and put yourself in the room. I'm still locked into LPs and 45's by your reasoning.

JGowan
Feb 8, 2007, 06:01 PM
IF this is true, I see it as a business move by Apple. Before now, the draw for a new iPod has been storage increases. Sure, along the way, we've had the addition of color screens that did photos, some cosmetic changes and with the 5Gen, we now can play video. But what has been constant has been the increasing hard drive.

Now, Apple has touchscreen and all that goes with that. Very cool. But if you offer it as 100GB or "just" an 80GB drive, people who own are going to feel pretty satisfied and not very likely to buy newer ones in the future. With 100GB, most people would say, "hey, I've got all the iPod I need for quite a while". Apple does not want this:

Offering lower FLASH DRIVE-based iPods at smaller than desirable sizes is really the only feasible thing as Flash Memory is so expensive now BUT it is also a way of NOT offering the ULTIMATE IPOD which would cannibalize Apple's next offering in a player with more memory.

Apple can tout:

• Thinner than ever
• Bigger screen (I'm hoping)
• Touch Screen with Cover Flow
• Faster access with no waiting or stalling
• No moving parts: player will last longer
• Improved battery life
• Oh... yeah... only 32GB

The iPod is getting so cool -- and now with the TRUE VIDEO IPOD® coming out inevitably, Apple will need some way to keep them waiting for the next big thing... in this case, it's space (again), except this time it's of a different variety. The type that actually will benefit everyone in the long run, make money for Apple and prolong the life of iPods made with it.

My guess is that when (or if) these are released, the next version of iTunes will allow the user to easily set up multiple iPod Playlists. Not a Playlist of songs but a Playlist of Songs, Videos, Games, Notes & Photos. This way, a person can come home and sync the iPod and completely rewrite over the entire iPod and replace with an content for a new mood of content for the next day. Writing to flash multiple times won't hurt the memory like writing and re-writing to a normal hard drive would. But, Apple has to have a way to have this be simple and easy to do so that people aren't dissapointed in having to manually select through 200GB worth of music, photos, games and videos to find 25GB worth of NEW stuff everytime. Creating multiple "iPod Playlists" at one sitting would make subsequent syncs painless and thus an enjoyable experience.

SiliconAddict
Feb 8, 2007, 08:02 PM
I still don't understand. Will your iPod spontaneously combust when new ones come out?

Odds are that if they do drop in capacity for a few months (which is an almost certainly not-gonna-happen, at least to the 80GB), they'll exceed that capacity within a year. Remember the nano?

Moreover, you're not locked into anything with FairPlay that you haven't been for decades, and you can't really call it "lock in" when you opened the door and put yourself in the room. I'm still locked into LPs and 45's by your reasoning.

Umm no. Both LP's and 45's can be output without sound degradation. The same can't be said of burning to CD then reripping to nonDRM AAC.
The core reason that I went with Apple and the iPod at the time was it was the only 60GB PMP on the market, which was the only thing that could fit my collection. (48GB, I think, at the time.) Well that and iTunes.
With 4-5GB of space and shrinking I'm going to need to replace it in the coming year unless I want to start carrying around subsets of my collection. Which I don't. I purchased the iPod with the intent of having my entire collection at my fingertips. I spend about 5 hours in my car every day. I want to be able to pull up something at the spur of the moment. My iPod is my jukebox. I don't want to think about what music to bring along. I just want it all with me.

EDIT: Then again if this does get announced I can quick pick up an 80GB iPod which should last me a couple years. By that time hopefully flash density should surpass the ability to do 80GB....hmmm

I'm sorry if you can't see this but moving backwards on disk space is not only a bad idea its critically stupid. Who has ever heard of people needing less space when they decide to upgrade? I don't know about you but when I go out and buy a new hard drive I'm not looking at its cache size or spindle speed as the primary factor when I'm buying a new hard drive. Similarly I know of only two people that upgraded based on the iPod's video playback abilities. Everyone else that I know, about 15 people out of about 28 ipod users, of did it because: A. Their battery was dieing and they would rather spend the money on a new device. B. they are running out of space and need a larger drive. C. the device died out of warrantee. A and C are born out of necessity. B is the real reason why many people upgrade.

My only real choice is to try and find out if HYMN still is working on iTunes7. Yah its a breach of license with Apple and iTMS but frankly if they do pull such a stunt I frankly wouldn't give a crap about their licensing.

As for walking into the room. I did so with the assumption that Apple and the iPod would grow with my needs. This is not growing. Its not even stagnating. I mean seriously 2 years to go from 60GB to 80GB to a theoretical 64GB. . . That deserves a big 'o Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

But again this is all speculation and I understand that but if it happens.... :mad: thankfully I only have a few hundred iTMS tracks. So if Apple does pull this crap I can flip em the bird and leave.

EDIT: Hmm. What I COULD do is wait for an announcement, if this does occur I could then pick up an 80GB iPod before its discontinued. That would last me a few years. By the time I'm ready to upgrade hopefully SSR density would be good enough to surpass 80GB. Hmm. Not a perfect solution. But it would work.

Chef Medeski
Feb 8, 2007, 08:38 PM
You have to take this story in context.

Samsung has announced 16GB flash.

Seagate has announced 80, 120GB microdrives. Apple has stated interest in both.
(sosumi)

Hell just put those in a Video iPod and use the rest of the space for battery so it has a longer battery.

Also the hybrid thing is a good idea. Videos would probably the best thing to put on flash, since they have the largest data rate for watching. Especially since you usually only have to stir up the disck per song, since the cache holds about 1 song I believe. So, video would be helped a lot from Flash in terms of battery, but music less so. I say 4gb plus 30GB HD is nice. Or 8GB with 80. I dont know if 8 is enough for videos but... for now it has to do. I mean the price for 8GB is the same as a 30GB HD so....

matticus008
Feb 8, 2007, 09:04 PM
Umm no. Both LP's and 45's can be output without sound degradation. The same can't be said of burning to CD then reripping to nonDRM AAC.
Actually, each time you play a record, you degrade the quality. Moreover, all of the sub-$200 turntables suck, which means I'm locked into a narrow band of supported hardware of sufficient quality. The point is that time causes things to change, and customers move on and adapt. We all discard sizable investments and move on. I'm not crying over cassette tapes, and I'm not stealing every album I bought on tape, because that's not the way it works.
I purchased the iPod with the intent of having my entire collection at my fingertips.
And it worked at the time. You can't expect future products to scale with your future needs precisely; nothing in the future is guaranteed. Grumbling about selling off all your Apple products because the capacity didn't increase is going a bit overboard.
I'm sorry if you can't see this but moving backwards on disk space is not only a bad idea its critically stupid. Who has ever heard of people needing less space when they decide to upgrade? I don't know about you but when I go out and buy a new hard drive I'm not looking at its cache size or spindle speed as the primary factor when I'm buying a new hard drive.
Well, I do look at those statistics, because I already have enough persistent storage for archival data (in the terabytes), and the key issue now is increasing disk performance. "Moving backwards" is not critically stupid if it allows for other possibilities which are more important in the grand scheme of things--3-4 times the battery life, a substantially larger display and more powerful SOC capable of more advanced features (Coverflow on the iPod, wifi access, etc.). These features are a great deal more important to most users than simply increasing capacity. I don't give a crap about video, either.

That said, it's inconceivable that they would kill off the high-capacity iPod entirely if they were to introduce this hypothetical product. You'll get you 100 or 120GB iPod one day, but maybe the rest of us think that 15,000 songs in our pocket is way beyond overkill already and wouldn't it be nice if music playback lasted 40 hours instead of 14? Wouldn't CoverFlow be a nice way to scroll through hundreds of albums? 64GB in something with barely more surface area than a floppy disk--just six or seven years ago, we were amazed at 10GB hard drives. Three years ago, you could barely get 60GB in a notebook. If 80GB stays the biggest iPod for a while, you'd be hard pressed to find something less sad.
Yah its a breach of license with Apple and iTMS but frankly if they do pull such a stunt I frankly wouldn't give a crap about their licensing.
That's just utterly ridiculous. You're contemplating throwing a tantrum and violating valid terms because there's a chance they might not come out with a bigger iPod. If that isn't the epitome of spoiled, I don't know what is.

Evangelion
Feb 9, 2007, 02:56 AM
Remember the old comment by Jobs about how people end up having the flash based mp3 player in a drawer and don't use it. A lot as changed.

That was because back then those flash-players had maybe 128MB of RAM in 'em.

guzhogi
Feb 9, 2007, 08:03 AM
Estimated cost of flash to Apple is $10 per GB, so $320 for 32GB. Apple wants to make profit, sales people want to make profit, taxman wants his cut, so make it $640 for the end user. Or $480 more than a current 8GB iPod.

That doesn't explain why there the larger drives are so much more expensive. Under that logic, ALL flash chips would be super expensive, not just 32 GB. Plus, someone said they go for $2499. I could understand if 32 GB cost a lot more do it being harder to make since they're new, but not just b/c everyone wants a profit. I'm just surprised that they're so much more expensive than lower capacity flash chips, regardless of reason.

tbrinkma
Feb 9, 2007, 12:36 PM
Here's my prediction (take it for what it's worth).

Apple will start transitioning the iPod line to Flash starting some time this year. They'll wait until their costs for flash fall to roughly $5/GB.

At this point, the Shuffle & Nano will drop in price, creating a continuous $50 price gap from the 1GB Shuffle to the 8GB Nano. The 30GB iPod 5.5G will become the 32GB iPod 6G, and the iPod 6G will have 2 HDD-based models at 80GB and 120GB.

It's possible that an early price point may allow them to introduce a 16GB Nano, but I don't expect it.

At this point, the line-up will look something like this:
$49 iPod Shuffle 1GB [flash]

$99 iPod Nano 2GB [flash]
$149 iPod Nano 4GB [flash]
$199 iPod Nano 8GB [flash]

$249 iPod (6G) 32GB [flash]
$299 iPod (6G) 80GB [hdd]
$399 iPod (6G) 120GB [hdd]

$499 iPhone 8GB [flash]
$599 iPhone 16GB [flash]


I figure the iPod 6G will essentially be the iPhone without phone features.
Notice the price-point spread matches their current spread.

tbrinkma
Feb 9, 2007, 12:54 PM
That doesn't explain why there the larger drives are so much more expensive. Under that logic, ALL flash chips would be super expensive, not just 32 GB. Plus, someone said they go for $2499. I could understand if 32 GB cost a lot more do it being harder to make since they're new, but not just b/c everyone wants a profit. I'm just surprised that they're so much more expensive than lower capacity flash chips, regardless of reason.

Here's why larger flash drives are so much more expensive...

Smaller flash drives use a single flash chip, and therefore can use much simpler controller hardware.
Larger flash drives use multiple top-end chips, boosting their cost and requiring more complex controller hardware to map 2, 4, 8, 16, or even 32 flash chips as a single contiguous memory space. It's kind of like adding a RAID card to the flash drive.
Essentially, up to the point where the flash drive becomes larger than the largest flash chip, the prices scale linearly. Once you break that point, the price curve starts to go up because of the added complexity & parts cost.

Of course, there's also the point at which so few people are interested in flash drives of that size that you don't get the same economies of scale any more, so the price point takes yet another jump.

If Samsung can currently sell 8Gb (Giga-bit) flash chips to Apple for $10 apiece (as I've seen claimed through several threads), and they've just announced 16Gb flash chips, then flash costs are about to take another dip.

I'd say if they could do 8Gb (1GB) at $10/chip, they'll probably be able to manage 16Gb (2GB) at $15-$17/chip, dropping the cost to $7.5-8.5/GB. That starts to make more uses of flash economical.

As for why disk-drives don't follow the same price curve, it's pretty simple. The physical materials cost of a 10 GB drive don't *significantly* differ from the physical materials cost of a 500 GB drive. You save a bit by reducing the platter count, but the shell, motors, etc. end up costing about the same, and those make up the bulk of the materials cost. The biggest difference between a high capacity disk and a lower capacity disk are the controller cards mounted to the drive. The biggest difference between high capacity flash and lower capacity flash is the number of flash chips.

In short, disk drives will always be less expensive than flash drives, even when flash drives are less expensive than disk drives. (Yes, I meant exactly what I said.) The high-end of disk drives will always be less expensive than the high-end of flash drives because doubling the storage of a flash drive doubles the component price, while doubling the storage of a disk drive adds some fraction to the component price.

guzhogi
Feb 9, 2007, 03:05 PM
Here's why larger flash drives are so much more expensive...

Smaller flash drives use a single flash chip, and therefore can use much simpler controller hardware.
Larger flash drives use multiple top-end chips, boosting their cost and requiring more complex controller hardware to map 2, 4, 8, 16, or even 32 flash chips as a single contiguous memory space. It's kind of like adding a RAID card to the flash drive.
Essentially, up to the point where the flash drive becomes larger than the largest flash chip, the prices scale linearly. Once you break that point, the price curve starts to go up because of the added complexity & parts cost.

Of course, there's also the point at which so few people are interested in flash drives of that size that you don't get the same economies of scale any more, so the price point takes yet another jump.

If Samsung can currently sell 8Gb (Giga-bit) flash chips to Apple for $10 apiece (as I've seen claimed through several threads), and they've just announced 16Gb flash chips, then flash costs are about to take another dip.

I'd say if they could do 8Gb (1GB) at $10/chip, they'll probably be able to manage 16Gb (2GB) at $15-$17/chip, dropping the cost to $7.5-8.5/GB. That starts to make more uses of flash economical.

As for why disk-drives don't follow the same price curve, it's pretty simple. The physical materials cost of a 10 GB drive don't *significantly* differ from the physical materials cost of a 500 GB drive. You save a bit by reducing the platter count, but the shell, motors, etc. end up costing about the same, and those make up the bulk of the materials cost. The biggest difference between a high capacity disk and a lower capacity disk are the controller cards mounted to the drive. The biggest difference between high capacity flash and lower capacity flash is the number of flash chips.

In short, disk drives will always be less expensive than flash drives, even when flash drives are less expensive than disk drives. (Yes, I meant exactly what I said.) The high-end of disk drives will always be less expensive than the high-end of flash drives because doubling the storage of a flash drive doubles the component price, while doubling the storage of a disk drive adds some fraction to the component price.

That's what I thought. I'm just surprised all the extra cards (plus profit, etc.) cost that much more.

Telp
Feb 9, 2007, 04:38 PM
flash is the future tho, its the smart move for apple to make, but as i already said, they just cant make all flash, they need there high-capacity models in their too

matticus008
Feb 9, 2007, 09:10 PM
Essentially, up to the point where the flash drive becomes larger than the largest flash chip, the prices scale linearly.
No they don't. Partially due to market forces and largely due to density and manufacturing process (and defect rate), prices are not linear. Even just isolating defect rate, capacity increases on the same process result in exponential error rates.

Just imagine a hypothetical product composed of five cells. If the error rate is 1 per 1000 cells, the finished product will have close to a 1 in overall 1000 error rate. Products with 100 such cells are likely to have a much higher total an error rate on the order of 10 per 1000, which increases per-unit cost.
Once you break that point, the price curve starts to go up because of the added complexity & parts cost.

Of course, there's also the point at which so few people are interested in flash drives of that size that you don't get the same economies of scale any more, so the price point takes yet another jump.

Market forces and higher density capacities are too complex to explain briefly, but they also contribute to higher prices per unit.

In short, disk drives will always be less expensive than flash drives, even when flash drives are less expensive than disk drives.
Yes, but the reason that's true is not the difference in material goods, but rather maturity of the technology. The modern hard drive has been around for 20 years (there's no real difference between SCSI/IDE/SATA in the drive itself), and the technology has matured considerably. When some new product replaces our current understanding of the hard drive (holographic or some other form of optical storage, for example), flash technology will be far cheaper. The major force driving flash prices down are maturity and volume. There's only been a huge market for it in the past decade. Five years from now, what we're paying now will seem absurd.

Price per byte has to drop over time absent any sweeping changes to access speed or some other feature that can seize importance. If they cut access times by a factor of 10 over hard drives, but price per byte triples, there might still be a market for it even if most people still use magnetic hard drives.

SiliconAddict
Feb 9, 2007, 10:09 PM
That's just utterly ridiculous. You're contemplating throwing a tantrum and violating valid terms because there's a chance they might not come out with a bigger iPod. If that isn't the epitome of CHOICE, I don't know what is.



FTFY. :rolleyes: If I want to go somewhere else because Apple isn't providing what I want I shouldn't loose my music because of their DRM scheme.

matticus008
Feb 9, 2007, 10:41 PM
FTFY. :rolleyes: If I want to go somewhere else because Apple isn't providing what I want I shouldn't loose my music because of their DRM scheme.
In an ideal world, absolutely. But if I buy an American car, I'll need English tools to work on it, and my wheels and tires won't fit because the bolt offsets and sizes will be different. The leaf cover won't fit, and I'll probably need different oil and air filters, not to mention different oil.

If you want to stop buying something and buy something else because you don't like the current offerings, that's fine. But the reality is that you knew when you bought the music that it only worked with iPods. There were no intimations or offerings to the contrary. You knew that if you decided to get rid of your iPod, you'd be limited to listening to that music on audio CDs and on iTunes.

I bought a set of blades for my food processor two weeks ago. They will only work in Cuisinart food processors. I also bought a Black and Decker food processor yesterday because it was available for an unbeatable price and I couldn't resist having a second one around. The $75 I spent on those blades doesn't lock me into Cuisinart, because I chose to buy them knowing that they only worked in a handful of Cuisinart appliances. Lock in implies deliberate force and no choice. You always had the option not to use iTMS for your iPod, but you chose not to exercise it. Now you can choose to use something else.

Once upon a time, "reasons that make a change more difficult or less desirable" were called things to consider or and went under a little column called "cons." I guess now if I have a kid, that little rugrat will be guilty of locking me into a minivan? If I buy a DVD player, I suppose I'm locked into DVDs even if I want get the VHS because it's cheap. If I buy brown shoelaces, I'm locked in to brown shoes. Wow, suddenly nothing's my fault, even if I knew the consequences all along. I like it.

Poff
Feb 10, 2007, 08:35 AM
...?

SactoGuy18
Feb 10, 2007, 04:15 PM
...Until someone comes up with a huge leap forward in flash memory technology, don't expect Apple to offer an all-flash memory iPod with more than 16 GB when Apple does their hardware "refresh" of the iPod this coming fall.

I think Apple will offer this iPod lineup by fall 2007:

Shuffle: 1 GB at lower cost, new 2 GB model

nano: 2 GB dropped, 4 and 8 GB models drop in price, new 16 GB model arrives at same cost as current 8 GB model

"Regular" iPod: new model derived from iPhone (e.g., 16:10 aspect ratio full screen, touchscreen controls) in 80 or 120 GB hard disk storage capacities.

By 2009, when flash memory technologies are vastly improved, Apple will finally drop the hard disk for storage on their "video" iPods and offer them with either 60 GB (low end), 100 GB (midrange) and 150 GB (high end) flash memory storage.

sam10685
Feb 13, 2007, 10:27 AM
about time. personally i was always reluctant to buy an ipod till the flash-based nano came out.

same here. i haven't gotten a regular sized ipod because they are so fragile and i drop stuff a lot. (dropped my cell phone about 4000 times.) i want a nano but i don't listen to music that much so i want something that plays video's and movies.

gadgetguy08
Feb 20, 2007, 10:33 AM
I very much doubt this will happen, at least any time soon. First of all, it would be prohibitively expensive. But mostly, I see the disadvantages far outweighing the advantages. Space on the iPod would have to decrease dramatically, at least for the next year or two. Considering I've almost completely filled my 60GB 5G, there's no way I would spend $450 on an iPod that holds half as much as my $400 iPod does. Mainly, though, I just don't see any real advantages to large-capacity flash-based memory versus an HD-based memory, except in the nano and shuffle. The current size of the iPod, even in the 60/80GB form factor, is just about perfect. It feels good in the hand without being too large to store in a pocket. Any smaller and they will become quite fragile without any real space-saving advantages over the current model.

In my opinion, the ideal next generation iPod would be a "stripped-down" iPhone, if you will. I'm talking about an iPod of about the same size and appearance as the iPhone, but with all internal space devoted to music, video, battery, and bluetooth (a definite must for the 6G). Keep the iPhone's "virtual iPod" widescreen interface as standard, increase storage capacity (100-120GB), add bluetooth and replace the shiny back cover of the current and previous models with whatever it is they used on the iPhone. (From what I can tell, it looks much less scratch-able.)

Apple really does need to spend some time on the durability of their products' surfaces, though. You can't even touch an iPod without scratching that soft resin.

Howard Brazee
Feb 20, 2007, 10:56 AM
They should continue going in more than one direction.

Assume that some people will want to watch movies - on the iPOD and on high definition TVs. Make the disk drive big and fast to copy movies onto the iPOD.

Assume that some people will want to show off photos. Add iPhoto type organization ability or sub folders of sub folders so someone can fins a particular portfolio.

Assume some people will want to use the iPOD only for listening. Make it quick and easy to load and unload playlists and albums. e.g. to grab the Christmas playlist and play it with songs in random order - but easily switch to the Rock playlist and play its songs in random order.

Is the USB limiting transfer speed?

Find a legal way of storing our complete playlists on different computers.