PDA

View Full Version : A Hard Drive wouldn't work for iPod Touch




standeliverleav
Sep 11, 2007, 04:42 PM
My best bet is that the fluidity of the UI and it's ability to access your content in the timeless and tasteful manner it does would not happen without the speed of flash.

I don't know anything, but it just makes sense that they couldn't put a hard drive in the iPod Touch with the same interface and have it still run as fast and fluid.


:apple:



jesusplay
Sep 11, 2007, 04:52 PM
My best bet is that the fluidity of the UI and it's ability to access your content in the timeless and tasteful manner it does would not happen without the speed of flash.

I don't know anything, but it just makes sense that they couldn't put a hard drive in the iPod Touch with the same interface and have it still run as fast and fluid.


:apple:

nawh..


they could put one in it if they felt like it.... flash isnt as big as the hdd .... so thats why touch is thinner

gear71428
Sep 11, 2007, 04:59 PM
I think people worried about storage size on a wifi equiped player device (like the ipod touch or the iphone) are not really considering how a "new" device like this can be used.

You don't have to carry around every file you own to have access to it like you did with an ipod.

I own a Western Digital World Book HDD that is connected to my router (my home network) at my home. This stand alone drive contains all my files (music, video, photos, etc.) and the drive acts as its' own server.

If I want I can access any of the files on the drive from any computer in the world if the computer has internet access.

If I can do this with an iphone or an ipod touch, why would I need a lot of memory on the potrable device? I could just download and use any of my files as I want. The portable device becomes more of a "player".

gloss
Sep 11, 2007, 04:59 PM
nawh..


they could put one in it if they felt like it.... flash isnt as big as the hdd .... so thats why touch is thinner

Nawh.

Flash is extremely fast compared to a physical HD, and the iPhone/iPod Touch's lightning interface would not function nearly as well without it. A HD-based iPod Touch (without some sort of RAM buffer) would be dog slow. The slowdown plaguing the less-graphically-intensive UI on the Classic is evidence of this.

Fearless Leader
Sep 11, 2007, 05:04 PM
And my ipod's interface makes me want to cry its so slow.

Firstly, The thing would have a good amount of RAM in it so its not constantly accessing the HDD. Secondly, my 3rd gen ipod is fast with loading songs and going through lists I get no choking or bottlenecking.

PlaceofDis
Sep 11, 2007, 05:14 PM
i would think that not only is it flash because of access speed, durability, and size, but also because of wear on the drive. if it was a spinning platter and you were constantly changing it from landscape to portrait as i'm sure will happen, the drive is going to get bounced around a lot more than even a normal ipod.

indraunt
Sep 11, 2007, 06:33 PM
I'm pretty sure battery life would have something to do with it too. All the other bits and pieces in the touch will drain the battery fast enough without a hard drive buzzing away all the power.

squeeks
Sep 11, 2007, 06:54 PM
yup, but you guys keep forgetting you cant access your music on your "server" if you're not in a hotspot...so im driving across country, how am i supposed to listen to my music now?

Jay42
Sep 11, 2007, 06:58 PM
Im guessing they simply didnt want to spend the extra r and d money to engineer an HDD iPod Touch when HDD mp3 players will be obsolete in 1-2yrs.

aethelbert
Sep 11, 2007, 07:09 PM
yup, but you guys keep forgetting you cant access your music on your "server" if you're not in a hotspot...so im driving across country, how am i supposed to listen to my music now?
I have 500MB of music, it's eight hours worth. Unless you drive really slow, you'd make it without (shuddering) listening to the same song twice...

16GB might be a small amount comparing to the HDD models, but it is still quite a lot of space and I think that people are underestimating how much music can actually be put on there. Yeah, some will have large video collections, but that (to me) just screams a classic as you won't get much video on 16GB without a lot of swapping efforts.

jesusplay
Sep 11, 2007, 07:50 PM
Nawh.

Flash is extremely fast compared to a physical HD, and the iPhone/iPod Touch's lightning interface would not function nearly as well without it. A HD-based iPod Touch (without some sort of RAM buffer) would be dog slow. The slowdown plaguing the less-graphically-intensive UI on the Classic is evidence of this.

Nawh.


go buy kanye west albulm. FIRE!

TheSpaz
Sep 11, 2007, 08:47 PM
I have 500MB of music, it's eight hours worth. Unless you drive really slow, you'd make it without (shuddering) listening to the same song twice...

16GB might be a small amount comparing to the HDD models, but it is still quite a lot of space and I think that people are underestimating how much music can actually be put on there. Yeah, some will have large video collections, but that (to me) just screams a classic as you won't get much video on 16GB without a lot of swapping efforts.

I think the real reason why people want more storage on their iPods is this:

More of a SELECTION to choose from when you suddenly become in the mood to listen to a certain artist or song. Let's say I'm hanging out with a friend (away from my computer) and we are talking about music and I suddenly remember that I have the perfect song to show him/her... Suddenly, I realize that since my iPod's storage is too small, I didn't plan ahead and put that song on the iPod so it is not there when I try to find it. Then I would have to say... well, it's not on my iPod right now, I'll have to show you some other time (by which time the opportunity would have already passed and it wouldn't be as special).

I like to be able to drive around knowing that if I am suddenly in the mood for an album I haven't heard in a while, I have it right there at my finger tips without worrying about getting back home to put it on my iPod.

ivan a rom
Sep 11, 2007, 09:08 PM
A HDD and screen like that would make the battery drain VERY quickly, leading to a TON of recharges, leading to a TON of replaced batteries. All of this would result in a public outcry because "apple screwed us again" with the battery replacement fees.

All of that logic is not even taking into account the fact thatthe nano is THE iPod to have. With low capacities it proves that the average Joe/Jane doesn't worry as much about capacity as just having a few thousand songs on an easy to use device. The general public (read: millions) is worth a lot more than a couple of thousand nerds on the interweb.

I think these are the reasons, more so than the size/speed, that apple decided to go flash.

Dagless
Sep 11, 2007, 09:10 PM
Im guessing they simply didnt want to spend the extra r and d money to engineer an HDD iPod Touch when HDD mp3 players will be obsolete in 1-2yrs.

I severely doubt that.
How long till flash memory can even touch the capacity of the Classic iPod?

It was about 4 years that I bought a 15gb iPod. And you expect 32gb to jump to whatever capacity a mini HDD will be at by then?

Flash is the way forward but it's so crippled with capacity.

gloss
Sep 11, 2007, 09:27 PM
I think the real reason why people want more storage on their iPods is this:

More of a SELECTION to choose from when you suddenly become in the mood to listen to a certain artist or song. Let's say I'm hanging out with a friend (away from my computer) and we are talking about music and I suddenly remember that I have the perfect song to show him/her... Suddenly, I realize that since my iPod's storage is too small, I didn't plan ahead and put that song on the iPod so it is not there when I try to find it. Then I would have to say... well, it's not on my iPod right now, I'll have to show you some other time (by which time the opportunity would have already passed and it wouldn't be as special).

I like to be able to drive around knowing that if I am suddenly in the mood for an album I haven't heard in a while, I have it right there at my finger tips without worrying about getting back home to put it on my iPod.

This is why I have an old 40gb plugged into my car stereo. =)

aethelbert
Sep 11, 2007, 09:52 PM
I think the real reason why people want more storage on their iPods is this:

More of a SELECTION to choose from when you suddenly become in the mood to listen to a certain artist or song. Let's say I'm hanging out with a friend (away from my computer) and we are talking about music and I suddenly remember that I have the perfect song to show him/her... Suddenly, I realize that since my iPod's storage is too small, I didn't plan ahead and put that song on the iPod so it is not there when I try to find it. Then I would have to say... well, it's not on my iPod right now, I'll have to show you some other time (by which time the opportunity would have already passed and it wouldn't be as special).

I like to be able to drive around knowing that if I am suddenly in the mood for an album I haven't heard in a while, I have it right there at my finger tips without worrying about getting back home to put it on my iPod.
This is true, but most people don't have that much music. And I can promise you that if the touch came out with a hard drive, there would still be many people complaining for the sluggishness of the OS and for the size of the device, as well as the poor(er) battery life.

I severely doubt that.
How long till flash memory can even touch the capacity of the Classic iPod?

It was about 4 years that I bought a 15gb iPod. And you expect 32gb to jump to whatever capacity a mini HDD will be at by then?

Flash is the way forward but it's so crippled with capacity.

Yeah, flash is far behind hard drives, but also keep in mind that it increases storage at a faster rate. Two times larger per new capacity. I think that flash and hard drive iPods will meet at around 500 and 512GB, respectively.