Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPod

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 9, 2009, 03:04 PM   #1
michael31986
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
WTH! no ipod nano 32gb? why?

i was really excited to see a 32gb nano,because then next year i would have high hopes for a 64gb nano, but apparently not. why didn't they do it. they could have made a 32gb for 200 bucks? no? i mean the classic is 250, but i think its still bulky ugh.
michael31986 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2009, 03:07 PM   #2
Unspoken Demise
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: >9,000
Send a message via AIM to Unspoken Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by michael31986 View Post
i was really excited to see a 32gb nano,because then next year i would have high hopes for a 64gb nano, but apparently not. why didn't they do it. they could have made a 32gb for 200 bucks? no? i mean the classic is 250, but i think its still bulky ugh.
Because they need to keep things interesting. Now next year you'll want a 32GB, they'll provide it, you'll buy it.

is in no rush to give you everything you want.
Unspoken Demise is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2009, 03:16 PM   #3
michael31986
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
i want a 64gb nano not 32. i hoped for a 32 this year so that next your we could possibly get 64. they wont jump the gun and just go to 64 now... ugh... i hope i don't have to wait 2 years for a damn 64gb nano. and before anyone asks. i have an iphone so i dont nor need an ipod touch and the 64gb ipod touch is to expensive and not user friendly for the car or in the pocket. i want an ipod.
michael31986 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2009, 03:24 PM   #4
TheBritishBloke
macrumors 68030
 
TheBritishBloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: United Kingdom
As Unspoken Demise said,

Most likely they have the feature available, but want to save something for next year (Like they did with the iPhone/3G).

However, it is also possible that they couldn't fit 4 x 8GB flash chips on the circuit board, as well as a camera, and keep it the same size. They'd probably have to make it fatter, which you know Apple WON'T do.

Like even with the 64GB Touch. They're probably using either 8GB or 16GB flash chips in there, they want to keep costs down as every business does, so they don't use 32GB chips (v.expensive and rare?)
TheBritishBloke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2009, 03:32 PM   #5
michael31986
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
i guess that makes sense, so much for them phasing out the classic, but it sucks that they can't make the classic look more like the nano in the sense that they shoudl change the interface so its just one big album cover!
michael31986 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2009, 03:35 PM   #6
dopey220
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
I want a 64 GB nano to replace my 30 GB 5.5G.

As far as the rest of today's announcements go, I'm indifferent to the new Shuffles, it's cool that the touch is now available in a 64 GB model, and I'm absolutely delighted that they haven't killed off the Classic.
__________________
I have a couple of computers and a few MP3 players. No phones or tablets, though. I mean, I have a smartphone and a tablet, but they aren't Fapple. Also, the tablet is broken because I dropped it.
dopey220 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2009, 03:37 PM   #7
TheBritishBloke
macrumors 68030
 
TheBritishBloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by michael31986 View Post
i guess that makes sense, so much for them phasing out the classic, but it sucks that they can't make the classic look more like the nano in the sense that they shoudl change the interface so its just one big album cover!
I see what you mean.

A Touch-Screen Classic would be absolutely fan-daby-dosey. A nice huge 160GB HDD, with a beautiful 4" touch-screen, could run iPhone OS. Granted, HDD's aren't the best for running around with, but imagine that design, would be absolutely incredible.

I wouldn't sell my iPhone for it, but I'd probably still buy one for the amazing storage and touch screen. Maybe they could make two versions, one with the click wheel so it is classic, and one with the touch-screen.
TheBritishBloke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2009, 03:46 PM   #8
michael31986
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
i dont want a touch screen classic. i mean i want the interface to look like the nano. the nano has a huge album cover as the whole background on the screen when playing a song. They should have just made a more expensive nano. ugh it sucks cause i dont need more than 160, but i need more than 32, so 64 would tide me over for a while. Too bad the touch is only getting these big huge bumps. they are getting it cause they are big sellers, but i want an ipod not an iphone looka like. i already have an iphone. and the new classic is strange in the sense that they couldn't put more memory. in a sense they went back to 2 yrs ago model...just thinner. i think the battery life on the old 160 is longer still no?
michael31986 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2009, 03:51 PM   #9
TheBritishBloke
macrumors 68030
 
TheBritishBloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: United Kingdom
The battery life is the best on the classic I believe (of the screened iPods anyway).

The classic with 160 a couple of years ago : I believe it had two of the 1.8" drives in there, which made it hugely fat. I bought the 80GB model then, as I didn't want that huge one, it was just silly.

Apple is obsessed with thinness and smallness. If they could fit a 20" screen on a 4" device.. They would. LOL. That's when they make fold-out OLED screens anyway
TheBritishBloke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2009, 03:55 PM   #10
michael31986
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
what battery life is better new 160gb classic or old 160gb classic version.
michael31986 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2009, 03:59 PM   #11
TheBritishBloke
macrumors 68030
 
TheBritishBloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: United Kingdom
New ofcourse. As I said, the other had two drives, which means more spinning, which means more power required.
TheBritishBloke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2009, 08:49 PM   #12
michael31986
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
apparently i read online that the old 160gb still had longer batter. at almost 50 hours.
michael31986 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2009, 03:17 AM   #13
voltare
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2008
I'm with you. I can't believe they added all these features and no 32GB. Crazy...
voltare is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2009, 03:56 AM   #14
rgarjr
macrumors 603
 
rgarjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: C a l i f o r n i a
They didn't do the 32GB because of course, that's something they want to do on the next update so people would want it.
rgarjr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2009, 06:11 PM   #15
James2010
Guest
 
it has been rumoured, that toshiba has created the 64GB flash chip, and that next year, there is going to be a 128gb ipod touch, a 64gb iphone, and a flash based ipod classic. now if they are upgrading the classic to flash, then it would be MOST likely that they are bringing out a 32gb ipod nano, although i have not heard of any rumours about that yet. will keep you updated.
  0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2009, 09:10 PM   #16
illegallydead
macrumors 6502a
 
illegallydead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Colorado!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by James2010 View Post
it has been rumoured, that toshiba has created the 64GB flash chip, and that next year, there is going to be a 128gb ipod touch, a 64gb iphone, and a flash based ipod classic. now if they are upgrading the classic to flash, then it would be MOST likely that they are bringing out a 32gb ipod nano, although i have not heard of any rumours about that yet. will keep you updated.
You still cannot beat HDD's for CHEAP massive storage. Sure you could replace the classic's storage for flash, but it would be >$500. People (myself included) like the Classic for what it is: a MUSIC player, that holds boatloads of songs, lasts forever, and doesn't cost a mint. I have a feeling Apple will either ax the Classic next year, or keep it exactly as it is, with maybe a battery / capacity bump.
__________________
"Lord, what fools these mortals be." - Shakespeare (A Midsummer Night's Dream)
Stupidica.com
illegallydead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2009, 03:06 AM   #17
tmofee
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mildura
Send a message via MSN to tmofee Send a message via Skype™ to tmofee
until flash drops down in price to a halfway decent level, i dont think we'll see an end to the classic any time soon. sure, we're getting loads of brand new and wonderful tech, but tech that costs money. the classic fits that gap for the people who JUST want an decent capacity music player thanks to the HDD.

once it gets cheaper, my guess is the touch will replace the classic, the same size just with camera and everything else, and the nano will slowly get to the 32 gb size and stay as the small form one. it's a shame, there's nothing worse than reaching for your ipod touch/phone while youre driving and wanting to change songs, its a lot easier with a click wheel...
tmofee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2009, 04:11 AM   #18
phoobo
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
OK, but you'll pay in sound quality

Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey220 View Post
I want a 64 GB nano to replace my 30 GB 5.5G.
By far the best sound of all ipods comes from the 5g/5.5g full-size ipod. These are the ones with the good Wolfson audio chip. You'll be taking a hit in sound quality to give that one up for any of the newer versions.
phoobo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2010, 08:28 AM   #19
seangx
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
toshiba has made 64gb nad flash and hopefully apple will use for the 4th gen touch to increase capcity to 128gb making the classic on its last legs. i heard they have a 256gb hdd apple could use for the classic so why didnt they use for the new classic instead they remade the 160gb with less battery and a new software update.
seangx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2010, 08:38 AM   #20
seangx
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
the touch can house 2 flash chips in its circuitboard so that means the 8gb has one 8gb flash chips, 32gb has 2 16gb,or 1 32gb. and the 64gb houses 2 32gb chips. so scince toshiba is realsing a 64gb chip they do away with the 8gb and the 32gb will be the cheapest and hopefully the nano will be avaible in a 16 and 32gb model this september.
seangx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2010, 08:54 AM   #21
seangx
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
the 6th gen 160gb has 40hrs/music and 7hrs/video and the 7th gen has 36hrs/music and 6hrs/video. yes the drive was big but the battery was to so thats why the old one had good battery life because it was massive but the latest software for it was 1.2.1 and that software wouldnt play certain mp3 files or it would stop in the middle and skip to the next song.so i sacrificed a good video player for a one that plays all my music i missed my old 160gb.
seangx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2013, 07:55 PM   #22
superhuman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
I want to resurrect this conversation!

Is a 32GB iPod Nano beyond hope at this point? I use a Nano at the gym and I would love to be able to carry more of my music collection with me as I never know what I'll be in the mood for. I also connect a Nano to my head unit in my car; the iPhone 5 is too long to fit in the stowage area.
superhuman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2013, 05:56 AM   #23
spyguy10709
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: One Infinite Loop, Cupertino CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by superhuman View Post
I want to resurrect this conversation!

Is a 32GB iPod Nano beyond hope at this point? I use a Nano at the gym and I would love to be able to carry more of my music collection with me as I never know what I'll be in the mood for. I also connect a Nano to my head unit in my car; the iPhone 5 is too long to fit in the stowage area.
Nope.
Get an iPod touch.

What car unit do you have that's so small you can't fit an iPhone??
__________________
Last edited by spyguy10709; Tomorrow at 07:10 AM.

Last edited by spyguy10709; Mar 11, 2013 at 06:10 AM.
spyguy10709 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2013, 07:34 AM   #24
Ffosse
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
I have a 7th gen. Nano and 16Gb is big enough. I also have a 64Gb 5th gen. Touch
Ffosse is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2013, 12:18 PM   #25
superhuman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Spyguy, I have a 370Z and the dash storage compartment where my iPod connector is located is too small to fit an iPhone 5 with the terminal of the plug inserted. Wouldn't the iPod touch have the same length?

Ffosse, as for 16GB being enough... I currently have a 16GB Nano and it's not enough for me, which is really what matters, right? As I mentioned, I want more selection available to me on the fly whether at the gym or in my car. What's enough for you is not enough for me. Personal preference, so not sure what you were getting at...? If I was the only person that wanted this, the thread wouldn't exist. I actually have a small SanDisk MP3 player with 40GB storage (8GB internal + 32GB microSD) but the thing is slow as a snail and takes about 20 seconds to even change songs. The battery also doesn't stay charged very well and the UI is awful, so I regret going away from Apple in that regard.
superhuman is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPod

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New iPod Touch and iPod Nano Begin Shipping, Photos and Benchmarks Posted MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 119 Oct 16, 2012 12:47 PM
ipod nano first gen recall (trade up for new nano)? RidgeRacerType4 iPod 4 Oct 7, 2012 12:09 AM
Is the iPod nano, iPod shuffle and the iPod Classic dead? Retina MacBook iPod 3 Jul 22, 2012 03:36 AM
iPad mini similar to the "fat" nano? (3rd gen iPod nano) leukotriene iPad 2 Jul 7, 2012 11:44 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:31 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC