PDA

View Full Version : New iPods soon?




ericinboston
Mar 31, 2009, 06:37 PM
Howdy folks...I've been waiting since last Fall to here some kind of rumor (or a wishlist) about the next generation iPods. It's getting "about that time" for Apple to release a refresh...sometime around early May if I were to guess. Have any of you heard of anything or dying for a particular feature/size?

I'm particularly looking for your comments around the next Classic...

Here are my thoughts:

1)I'm a music collector and own over 20,000 songs. Yes, own...not pirated. :) All at 192k CBR so they eat up just about 120gigs.

2)Therefore, I have an iPod Classic 160gig which is now 2 generations old. I was HUGELY disappointed last Fall when the "new" Classics maxed out at 120gig and well, that seems to be it for "new features"...they downsized the drive and lowered the price. They may have changed the case a tad but nothing earth shattering as far as I know.

3)I can't fathom that Apple shrunk the drive due to their belief "well, 120gig is more than enough for anyone" since a)more and more people are storing videos/movies on their iPods and b)more and more people are storing WAV or Apple Lossless on their iPods so as to have as high quality as possible.


I'm hoping that the next release of the iPod Classic will be a 64gig or 120gig Flash based system. I really don't want to hear all the chatter about how these sizes are too expensive or not "the same" as Flash USB...the point is that the sizes ARE available and when MASS PRODUCED in the fashion of Apple's quantity, are relatively cheap. Nuff said.

I'm also hoping that the Classics (or whatever "large" iPod they release) will have an improved display. Don't get me wrong, my 2-gen-old Classic is great for what it is, but man would it be cool to have even a slightly better display.

I would also love to see a larger display...


So, what are your thoughts? I'm particularly looking for comments around the Classic or iTouch (if you think maybe these 2 will merge someday)...the Nanos are nice but waaaaaay too small in storage size.

-Eric



Tallest Skil
Mar 31, 2009, 06:52 PM
September.

ericinboston
Mar 31, 2009, 07:04 PM
September.

Care to post the link?

Kardashian
Mar 31, 2009, 07:09 PM
Care to post the link?

There won't be one.

Normally, new iPods have been released around the time TS posted - September.

They get rid of old stock by 'giving them away' through back-to-school promotions. (ie: a free Nano, or discount on Classic, Touch)

Michael CM1
Mar 31, 2009, 07:18 PM
1) Apple almost always does iPod revisions in the fall. The recent iPod shuffle is an exception to that rule.

2) You're in the extreme minority as far as storage goes. I'm not saying I couldn't use all of that 120 or 160GB, but there are very few people who want that at the expense of the iPhone or iPod touch features.

3) FYI there is no such thing as an "iTouch." You've probably seen dozens of people on here mistakenly put that. iPhone or iPod touch.

4) You might as well count the days down on the iPod classic. It's the last iPod that uses a HDD, and Apple makes a killing from the App Store. Maybe the iPod classic will get one more refresh with a larger HDD, but I'm betting this is the last generation for it. There will likely be a 64GB iPod touch this fall, and then maybe 128GB iPod touch the next year. It all depends on how fast the flash chips can be developed.

If you haven't tried one, I would really suggest checking out an iPod touch. I'm surviving (barely) with my 8GB iPhone after two years of a 30GB iPod. You have to learn how to live with playlists and limited space, but the apps and extra features make it worth it. I don't recall how I lived without mobile e-mail or Internet before. I also love the iShoot game to kill about 10 minutes, and I'm psyched to try out the MLB At Bat app for gameday audio.

ericinboston
Mar 31, 2009, 10:31 PM
1) Apple almost always does iPod revisions in the fall. The recent iPod shuffle is an exception to that rule.

2) You're in the extreme minority as far as storage goes. I'm not saying I couldn't use all of that 120 or 160GB, but there are very few people who want that at the expense of the iPhone or iPod touch features.

4) You might as well count the days down on the iPod classic. It's the last iPod that uses a HDD, and Apple makes a killing from the App Store. Maybe the iPod classic will get one more refresh with a larger HDD, but I'm betting this is the last generation for it. There will likely be a 64GB iPod touch this fall, and then maybe 128GB iPod touch the next year. It all depends on how fast the flash chips can be developed.

If you haven't tried one, I would really suggest checking out an iPod touch. .


Mmmm...I wouldn't say that I am the minority as far as capacity. I mean, really, I agree I am in a minority of people who own enough music to fill a 100gig medium...sure. However, I am by no means excessive when I look at the tons of other users walking around with 100MB video files on their iPods while I have my paltry 8MB 192k mp3 file. :) Apple surely will have to keep growing "the size" of iPods. If you look back to 1999 when I got my first 32MB mp3 player...even 16GB nowadays is leaps and bounds from 32MB. That's 50 times the storage capacity in about 10 years. I think you will find that my 120+gig "library" is not that outlandish....maybe just for music, but considering that more and more iPoders out there watch videos, free drive space gets sucked up very quickly. :)

I could really care less about video on a tiny iPod screen....gimme 100+gigs on a flash based iPod system and I'll be in line at 3am. :) I feel the HDD iPods are slower than mud even compared to my wife's 1st generation flash Nano. I think the Nano's are very very cool...but FAR too small (in storage capacity) than I or even a lot of my friends need.

As for #4 above, I don't care what my new and improved iPod will be called...heck, Apple's changed the iPod's names about 8 times since its birth. But I can tell you this: 64GB Flash chips (again, let's save the "Flash isn't iPod solid state" argument for another day) are being sold routinely for $75...and that's RETAIL price...consider wholesale and/or direct manufacturer AND the fact that Apple would be buying them in humungous quantities only underscores the fact that the chips are available very cheaply...and have been for over a year...and unless Apple makes huge changes to the iPod's firmware and software, there really ain't much R&D that Apple needs to do from that perspective...so it's pure gravy to make very slight alterations to the newer iPods while just stuffing them with cheaper/faster/smaller guts.

I know one of Apple's continual goals is to feed their giant margin...so "refreshes" will come out once a year (which is fine) for the iPods while Apple rakes in the cash...If you truly believe it's September 2009 for the new iPods I will be severely bummed....and extremely severely bummed if all they do is release a 32gig Nano and a 64gig Touch.

puckhead193
Mar 31, 2009, 10:37 PM
september - apple has a back to school special for college students. if you buy a mac you get a free ipod via rebate to help drive sales of computers and to clear out old stock. The sale ends the first few days into september then apple has a special event day for launch the new ipods. Just in time for college students moving into there dorms and walk to english 101 :p

ericinboston
Mar 31, 2009, 10:58 PM
september - apple has a back to school special for college students. if you buy a mac you get a free ipod via rebate to help drive sales of computers and to clear out old stock. The sale ends the first few days into september then apple has a special event day for launch the new ipods. Just in time for college students moving into there dorms and walk to english 101 :p

Uggg...I can't wait another 6 months...I've been waiting for about 1.5 years for a nice big flash-based system...and the big "this sucks" point about last Fall's new iPod lineup was about flash based disk space being so miniscule.

I'd hate to switch to a non-Apple device but I'm going nuts here with this poky hard-drive based system in 2009. I have never looked at the Zune but maybe it's time...

-Eric

mac88
Mar 31, 2009, 11:14 PM
Sorry bud, updates are almost always in September.

mac88
Mar 31, 2009, 11:16 PM
Sorry bud, updates are almost always in September. It will just give you more time to save for a better iPod.

Gyrferret
Apr 1, 2009, 12:21 AM
I am enjoying the idea that the 8 GB iPhone user said: "make playlists".
Listen. My Library is ~875 songs strong, but I don't listen to even 25% on a regular basis. Hey, I understand that you like A LOT of types of music. Odds are though, you have that Dexter's Laboratory of forgotten stuff.

In the end, just let go of what you don't need or actively listen to within the last couple of months. And anyway....

20,000 songs x 3:30 seconds (avg) = ~48.6 DAYS of music straight. Really man..... REALLY?

miles01110
Apr 1, 2009, 02:47 AM
2)Therefore, I have an iPod Classic 160gig which is now 2 generations old. I was HUGELY disappointed last Fall when the "new" Classics maxed out at 120gig ...

...

I'm hoping that the next release of the iPod Classic will be a 64gig or 120gig Flash based system. ...

If your main complaint is capacity, why are you fixated on a 120 gb flash system?

Apple surely will have to keep growing "the size" of iPods. If you look back to 1999 when I got my first 32MB mp3 player...even 16GB nowadays is leaps and bounds from 32MB. That's 50 times the storage capacity in about 10 years. I think you will find that my 120+gig "library" is not that outlandish....maybe just for music, but considering that more and more iPoders out there watch videos, free drive space gets sucked up very quickly. :)

I don't think anyone doubts that capacity will keep growing, but at the moment it's just a question of when. If it's not soon enough for you, you'll either have to a) wait or b) find an alternative.

McBeats
Apr 1, 2009, 05:31 AM
yep, i too have approx 140 gigs of music, tons of rare underground stuff, and i listen(ed) to ALL OF IT...

its about 60 days of music so far... and its growing... so i hope they make a 200 gig ipod classic...

i KNOW i wont be listening to em in one sitting, but the point is to skip to ANY song i have EVER had right away, without going "ohh crap its not on there, gotta wait till i take it home"... having the ability to switch to that one song when ur immediately in that certain mood to listen to it.

plus, genius feature on a 200gb library? thats gotta be some interesting findings.

it may sound sorta psychotic, but its a crucial thing in my every day life now.


im crazy, what can i say?...

edit: and yea, the new ipods (as always) come in september just after the 'back-to-school promotion' (to upsell apple stuff by getting rid of old ipod stock) ends.

coronel mustard
Apr 1, 2009, 07:20 AM
I agree with ericinboston- ipod no longer just store music. People now want to have movies, tv shows, music videos, podcasts, audiobooks, games and applications on their ipods as well as music- so greater capacity ipods are needed.

In the next gen ipods it would be nice to have

-bigger capacity
-fair greater battery life
-oled screen (perhaps:p)

Tallest Skil
Apr 1, 2009, 07:30 AM
I have never looked at the Zune but maybe it's time...

Yes, because THEIR flash storage is so much higher than the iPod touch's...

Oh, and they don't work with Macs, either.

ericinboston
Apr 1, 2009, 07:32 AM
If your main complaint is capacity, why are you fixated on a 120 gb flash system?



Because Apple took a step backwards with the last Classic. And I don't need to stop at 120gigs...I think ultimately if I had 200gigs that would be all I need since all I store is music.

Now, sure, maybe someday I will spend months re-ripping all my music to WAV *IF* there was a portable device to store it all...but I don't see that day coming for a few years.

And the fixation about Flash vs. HDD is pretty obvious...speed, weight, battery life, size of iPod...

ericinboston
Apr 1, 2009, 07:37 AM
Hey, I understand that you like A LOT of types of music. Odds are though, you have that Dexter's Laboratory of forgotten stuff.

In the end, just let go of what you don't need or actively listen to within the last couple of months. And anyway....

20,000 songs x 3:30 seconds (avg) = ~48.6 DAYS of music straight. Really man..... REALLY?

I know...I can't possibly listen to all tunes every hour of the day. But I'm a person who listens to a lot of different music as well as I just plain listen to a lot OF music every day of my life.

My point is that there are people out there like me that have large music collections. And heck, I only ripped at 192k. Think about these other situations:

1)people who rip at 320k or WAV or Lossless...they will fill up their iPod much faster than me
2)people who want to store that 100MB video or a few gigs (or tens of gigs) of videos
3)people who want to utilize the iPod as a Flash Drive for computer-to-computer file storage

miles01110
Apr 1, 2009, 08:00 AM
Because Apple took a step backwards with the last Classic. And I don't need to stop at 120gigs...I think ultimately if I had 200gigs that would be all I need since all I store is music.

And the fixation about Flash vs. HDD is pretty obvious...speed, weight, battery life, size of iPod...

But how does a 120 (probably 128) GB flash iPod solve your storage problem? You'll most likely wind up having to choose between flash and larger capacity.

amk29j
Apr 1, 2009, 08:05 AM
You can always search for a new (http://www.amazon.com/Apple-iPod-classic-Black-Generation/dp/B000JO1IPI) 160GB iPod. I'm sure a bunch of resellers have a ton of them plus some refurbs for probably the same price as the 120GB.

But my Apple philosophy is: wait til the new one comes out. If you don't like the new one, buy the old one for cheaper through the Apple Certified Refurbished page, through a reseller, or sometimes Apple even has stock of new older models (for example: you can still buy the old iPod Shuffle NEW from Apple)

Edit: I just don't quite understand how anyone has over 40 days worth of music and actually LIKES all of it. Aren't there songs in your library that you just don't like? I used to have a 60GB collection and realized that I only listened to a fraction of it. I got rid of MOST of my music. Most of it was stuff I used to like (angsty teen music... when I was a teen), but don't any more. Seriously analyze your library and seriously ask yourself "Do I really listen to this? Do I enjoy this song?" My music library is now 5GB, and it fluctuates. I discover new music, it goes up to 6 or 7GB. I realize that I really don't like some of it or that I have grown tired of some of my old music, it goes down to 4 or 5GB. Let go of your obsessive-compulsive music pack-ratting habits. Let go of the music you dislike!

Oh yeah, and I do understand music quality versus quantity. I'd honestly rather have my stuff in a lossless format, but that's just really impractical with the iPhone 8GB/16GB, which I plan to get as soon as the next revision comes out (hopefully soon!) I like lossless for the principal, though, so it doesn't matter to me. 256kbps AAC is almost equivalent to 512kbps MP3.

Gyrferret
Apr 1, 2009, 09:22 AM
What I was stating with the 20,000 music overkill was what the post above me was saying: that you cannot possibly listen to EVERY song. And I bet you that even if you DID listen to every song, it would only have been for a couple of minutes.

And if that doesn't float your boat, how about compress your music to a whopping 4 kbps?

4 kb/s – minimum achieved for encoding recognizable speech (using special-purpose speech codecs)
8 kb/s – telephone quality
32 kb/s – MW quality
192 kb/s – Nearly CD quality for a file compressed in the MP3 format
1,411 kb/s – CD audio (uncompressed, 16 bit samples 44.1 kHz 2 channels)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_rate_units#Examples

Foxer
Apr 1, 2009, 09:35 AM
and Apple makes a killing from the App Store.

Do we have any evidence of this? My understanding was that Apple simply wants to run the App Store as a "break even" operation - by giving the money made to the developers, you encourage more apps, which makes the iPhone/Touch a more attractive platform.

Foxer
Apr 1, 2009, 09:46 AM
I think I agree with the OP. I was very disappointed last fall - I had simply expected to get a 240gb or even a 320gb Classic. I've got over 13000 songs in Lossless that total over 400gb and I want access to almost all. I figure the HDD Classic won't survive the next upgrade (or at best, simply carry on unchanged) and it will be years before capacity gets back to the I already have with my 160gb classic. It's really a shame. I just don't quite understand how anyone has over 40 days worth of music and actually LIKES all of it. Aren't there songs in your library that you just don't like? I used to have a 60GB collection and realized that I only listened to a fraction of it. I got rid of MOST of my music. Most of it was stuff I used to like (angsty teen music... when I was a teen), but don't any more. Seriously analyze your library and seriously ask yourself "Do I really listen to this? Do I enjoy this song?" My music library is now 5GB, and it fluctuates. I discover new music, it goes up to 6 or 7GB. I realize that I really don't like some of it or that I have grown tired of some of my old music, it goes down to 4 or 5GB. Let go of your obsessive-compulsive music pack-ratting habits. Let go of the music you dislike!

I've seen these posts before. Obviously, with an ipod that can hold only about half of what I'd like to carry I already have to pick-and-choose. I just don't want to. I don't know how many times I've been in a music conversation at work and wanted to play a specific, obscure song - but I had to leave it off the iPod. The technology is there, expand the capacity. I'm very happy for those that can pair their collections down to some core (I've done this for my Nano that I use on some occassions), but I want the whole library with me. Seriously, I don't NEED any songs with me at all time, but I do WANT all of them.

Oh, and I'll be very upset if the eventualy Classic replacement is in the Touch form factor. I've had an iPhone since day 1, and the iPod function is used less than almost every other feature. The sliders are imprecise, it is difficult to navigate in general, I can't do anything when it is in Landsape mode. Seriously, try to move within a song or podcast that is over 20 minutes long. That slider is maddening.

POLOgt
Apr 1, 2009, 09:48 AM
Do we have any evidence of this? My understanding was that Apple simply wants to run the App Store as a "break even" operation - by giving the money made to the developers, you encourage more apps, which makes the iPhone/Touch a more attractive platform.

What? Why would you not want to profit in business???
Of course they are making a killing...

Where is your proof of them calling it a "break even" operation? Just assumed? ;)

google....
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Analyst-App-Store-Could-Net-Apple-1-2-Billion-by-2009-87956.shtml

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/06/11/apples_app_store_could_emerge_as_1_2b_business_by_2009.html

iMacmatician
Apr 1, 2009, 10:31 AM
If you truly believe it's September 2009 for the new iPods I will be severely bummed....and extremely severely bummed if all they do is release a 32gig Nano and a 64gig Touch.I actually believe this will happen.

iPod classic…probably one more revision.

TracingError
Apr 1, 2009, 02:20 PM
Look, first of all, telling a guy to pare down his library not only doesn't solve any problems but creates one. Now he's got to choose. A big project. And why should he have to?

Second, it seems you guys aren't serious music fans or are quite young and only like one type of music. If you are really into music, and you like all kinds, then even 32gb at 192kbs (below which sound quality suffers on decent headphones)--about 450 albums--is just enough for favorites. When you are older than 25 and have been listening to a wide variety of music for your whole life, that just scratches the surface. It's true, I have many favorite albums that I haven't played for a couple of years--much less a couple of months. But I love them and I WILL play them again and I wouldn't get rid of them and if I lost my collection [talking cds and lps here] I would buy them again.

Now the reason there was no 160gb classic last time is they decided to just go with the biggest single platter 1.8" drive. It had been 80gb, and they used two in the 160gb version, and it went up to 120. This fall, I expect they will do the same--whatever the biggest 1.8" drive is, that's what they'll use. There are enough power users out there to support it until flash catches up. This will probably be the last classic, before a 96 or 128 gb touch in Sept. 2010.

Foxer
Apr 1, 2009, 03:04 PM
What? Why would you not want to profit in business???
Of course they are making a killing...

Where is your proof of them calling it a "break even" operation? Just assumed? ;)

I'm basing that on Apple's own statements made, primarily, during the quarterly earnings teleconferences. They are content to operate the App Store (like ITMS) on a break even basis in the belief that they help drive hardware sales. If they do make money on either operation - and I didn't say that they don't - that's just gravy.

Razors or video game consoles are sold at a loss in order for you to be locked in for blades and software. Gillette and Nintendo don't look at that as a loss, simply driving larger profits. This is similar, except that it is "cheap" media to drive hardware. Same result.

frimple
Apr 1, 2009, 07:01 PM
I would bet that a 160Gb flash drive would be about $600. No one would buy it and I bet that the classic is going away all together (maybe not this next generation but after that....). Most people don't keep their entire library with them at all times. I've got an old 80Gb iPod video (first gen and still kickin!) that has about 55Gigs on it. My library is about 95Gigs total, but I've found that I enjoy switching out what music I'm listening to every week or so. And actually because mine is so old I'm trying to avoid changing what's on there, that disk has got to be just waiting to die. Anyways, my next iPod will be a touch (16 gig will give me more than enough stuff to listen to for a week). In my opinion this is probably what a majority of users will do.

So if Apple went this direction it would let them get rid of the classic all together and focus on the "hipper" touch. Which also lets people get on their app store.

RasterScan
Apr 1, 2009, 10:21 PM
We ( I work for Walmart) just placed all iPod on clearance. I have no idea if this was a mistake, the price change was given to us by the home office.
They only took $2 each model. We have no info on any new iPod's.

txr0ckabilly
Apr 1, 2009, 11:03 PM
Man, I get so sick of people on this form saying things " why would anyone need that much music?", "organize and use playlists", etc. I thought the entire persona that apple was trying to put out was "it's all about the user", "choice",and whatever other San fransisco hippy crap there is. I want my entire library in my pocket- it didn't fit on the 30gb, it didn't fit on the 60gb, it didn't fit on the 80gb, so they gave me an 120gb. Why?
Because that's what I needed. Now I need more.

If you want to spend time making playlist to sync with your nano or you 16gb iPhone, that's fine. I want it all with me all the time. I want to pull up any song I have at any time I want when I'm in the carwith my friends.

If I'm in the mood for some old school punk, it's there. I I want to listen hank Williams, it's there. If I want to (for ungodly reason) listen to Brittany spears, yeah I got that too.

Piss off with all your "you don't need that much space, music, etc. My music, my time, my mood, my tastes, etc, etc, etc

I for one would love a portable 300+ gb music/video solution.

txr0ckabilly
Apr 1, 2009, 11:06 PM
Then again, I'm 2 bottles of wine in so please ignore my rants and my poor iPhone thumb typing . . . .

frimple
Apr 2, 2009, 09:52 PM
Then again, I'm 2 bottles of wine in so please ignore my rants and my poor iPhone thumb typing . . . .

Well I'm willing to bet that with 300 gigs of space you'd still end up listening to the same 100 albums over and over. People tend to forget the joys of having a small collection to chose from. I recall the enjoyment of having a friend in the car that brought a new favorite album, and taking the long way to listen to it all the way through.

Maybe I'm just a romantic.

TracingError
Apr 3, 2009, 08:16 AM
I'm sorry, you are just wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Other people are different from you.

I've got about 2700 albums ripped losslessly (out of a much more substantial collection) and I've got an 8gb nano I use for the gym and train. Believe me, many many times I wish I could listen to some particular album that I don't have on my nano. With the nano, I can put, you know, a few new releases, a few jazz things, a few blues things, a few prewar country things, a few hardcore things, a few metal things, a few indie rock things, a few classical things, a few classic rock things, a few new wave things, a few drone/minimalism things, a few punk things, a few post-punk things, few hip hop things, a few free jazz things, a few new wave things, a few proto-punk things, a few heavy psych things, a math rock thing or two, a singer-songwriter thing or two, etc.

I'm sorry, a hundred or two albums is frankly impoverished. Thats how many records I took to college 20 years ago. Yeah, some of those weren't excellent, but if I want to hear Rush again, I want to hear Rush again, for Pete sake.

For that reason I also have my entire collection in mp3 on a portable hard drive which I use in the library, where I spend a lot of time. I also carry a big heavy expensive pair of headphones so that I can enjoy that music more. Believe me, I listen to at least 100 albums in a month, and probably only 20 of them will be repeat plays from the last few months.

miles01110
Apr 3, 2009, 08:38 AM
Those of you with large libraries, consider the iPod Super (http://www.command-tab.com/2005/03/13/ipod-super/). At the moment that's pretty much as good as it gets when it comes to the capacity/size tradeoff. For now, your whining is tiresome.

hexonxonx
Apr 3, 2009, 11:32 AM
I solved my capacity problem by getting two iPods. I have a 160GB for music and a 120GB for video.

I only bought two because my car stereo has an iPod hookup and plays music and videos through it's own screen.

MacLadybug
Apr 3, 2009, 11:43 AM
When the last iPods came out I bought 2 160GB Classics from Sam's Club, one for me, one for my husband. I bought the last two they had and got them to mark them down to $210. They live in our cars. I have a ton of music too. I don't understand why they reduced the storage size of the classic last fall, so I too am curious if a new large capacity iPod will come out this time.

GrannieSmith
Apr 8, 2009, 12:33 AM
I'm basing that on Apple's own statements made, primarily, during the quarterly earnings teleconferences. They are content to operate the App Store (like ITMS) on a break even basis in the belief that they help drive hardware sales. If they do make money on either operation - and I didn't say that they don't - that's just gravy.

Razors or video game consoles are sold at a loss in order for you to be locked in for blades and software. Gillette and Nintendo don't look at that as a loss, simply driving larger profits. This is similar, except that it is "cheap" media to drive hardware. Same result.


This actually makes sense to me - you presented this really well. Thanks.

Ivan P
Apr 8, 2009, 12:53 AM
When the last iPods came out I bought 2 160GB Classics from Sam's Club, one for me, one for my husband. I bought the last two they had and got them to mark them down to $210. They live in our cars. I have a ton of music too. I don't understand why they reduced the storage size of the classic last fall, so I too am curious if a new large capacity iPod will come out this time.

Apple is obsessed with making things thinner - and the 160GB was apparently "too thick" for their liking. There is also the fact that the 160GB iPod classic was the worst selling iPod ever. Yes, people bought it, and yes, some people "needed" it; but it's sales weren't high enough to warrant continuing it's production. Once a 160+GB device can be slimmed down a bit more (which shouldn't be too long, considering the 120GB classic is the same thickness as the old 80GB), I wouldn't be surprised if Apple bumped it up a bit more.

michael.lauden
Apr 8, 2009, 12:54 AM
IMHO the iPod is dead, and the iPod touch reigns supreme. i can't stand using iPod's any more!!!

Ivan P
Apr 8, 2009, 12:55 AM
IMHO the iPod is dead, and the iPod touch reigns supreme. i can't stand using iPod's any more!!!

A bit contradictory considering the iPod touch IS an iPod...maybe you should take notice of the suffixes that now apply to each individual model, hmmm?

:p

I'm just kidding :)

MacLadybug
Apr 8, 2009, 10:45 PM
Apple is obsessed with making things thinner - and the 160GB was apparently "too thick" for their liking.

You're right. You think they will ever make the iPhone 120GB or is that way too nuts?

Ivan P
Apr 8, 2009, 10:48 PM
You're right. You think they will ever make the iPhone 120GB or is that way too nuts?

Well it'd be more 128GB than anything (say, four 32GB or two 64GB chips...once they come down in price, far too expensive at the moment) as it uses flash as opposed to a moving hard drive like in the classic, it may be a possibility but they'd have to rework the internals to fit the extra chips in - apparently the reason there's a 32GB iPod touch and not a 32GB iPhone is because there's already so much stuff inside the iPhone that they can't fit in the two necessary 16GB chips.

So as for a much higher capacity iPhone, I'd say it'd be a few years at least, if it ever happens; prices right now for that much memory are rather ridiculous, and would push up production, and therefore purchasing, costs quite significantly.

Sehnsucht
Apr 9, 2009, 01:28 AM
I'd hate to switch to a non-Apple device but I'm going nuts here with this poky hard-drive based system in 2009. I have never looked at the Zune but maybe it's time...

WTF?! :confused: The current 120GB Zune is also hard-drive based...the 16GB Zune is the equivalent of the 16GB nano, flash-based. BY THE WAY, ZUNES SUCK! (Sorry, couldn't resist!) :D Not to mention that if you have a Mac as your only computer, you'll need to have Boot Camp to use the Zune.

I might be wrong, but there is yet to be a flash-based MP3 player with a capacity over 32GB...because flash memory, although it's getting gradually cheaper, is still really, really, really, really expensive compared to hard drives. ;)

Sehnsucht
Apr 9, 2009, 01:31 AM
IMHO the iPod is dead, and the iPod touch reigns supreme. i can't stand using iPod's any more!!!

What you mean is "the click wheel is dead, and touch-screen iPhone OS devices reign supreme."

Not yet. Eventually, though. :cool:

SactoGuy18
Apr 9, 2009, 07:15 AM
I expect the next iPod nano to be available in 16 and 32 GB versions. It will probably look almost exactly like the current 4G nano, but with a very slightly larger case to accommodate more flash memory.