Unhappy about the new ipod touch?

Discussion in 'iPod touch' started by caj, Sep 6, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. caj
    macrumors member

    caj

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Illinois, United States
    #1
    Unhappy about the new ipod touch's storage capacity? Well, I for one am. If you feel the same reply "me two" and then the next person "me three" etc.
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    Exactly how much flash memory were you hoping for, then? :rolleyes:
     
  3. macrumors 603

    Markleshark

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Location:
    Carlisle, Up Norf!
    #3
    160Gig of course.

    Life is a game of compromise, learn to live with it.
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    :D Mmm.... 160GB Flash. Let's see them get that into an iPod.
     
  5. macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #5
    Geeze people. the iPod Touch is about the same thickness as the Nano.

    There's just no pleasing some people. Me included.
     
  6. macrumors 68020

    rockthecasbah

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Location:
    Moorestown, NJ
    #6
    I was hoping for a hard drive, 80GB would have sufficed! I think Apple crippled the product by going with Flash and just making it about thinness, not performance.
     
  7. macrumors 603

    Markleshark

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Location:
    Carlisle, Up Norf!
    #7
    How have they crippled it? Because 1% of MacRumors readers can't fit their 100Gig iTunes Library onto it and wont be buying it?

    I'm sure Steve Jobs will be crying into his Billions.
     
  8. macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #8
    I can't see the point in the Touch to be honest.

    Woo, flashy interface. Big deal!
     
  9. macrumors 601

    gloss

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Location:
    around/about
    #9
    I'm pretty sure they made it about performance, not capacity.

    Flash = no seek and load times, much increased durability.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    Performance? Flash kicks HD's ass in performance.

    Exactly.

    The time will come when flash drives get big enough to fit everyone's needs, but for now Apple have made a good compromise by releasing a flash and HD player, with respective interfaces.
     
  11. macrumors 601

    gloss

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Location:
    around/about
    #11
    Flashy interface, bigger, better screen for video watching, high durability, and, most importantly, Mac OS X. That means hackability and expandability.
     
  12. macrumors 603

    Markleshark

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Location:
    Carlisle, Up Norf!
    #12
    Kind of is a big deal though. There is only so far you can take the click wheel, really.
     
  13. macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #13
    i'm sure they can make a one-off iPod Touch with 160GB of Flash memory. It'd just cost more than Apple Inc. itself :p
     
  14. macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #14
    But I'm not interested in a big screen, Wi-Fi, OS X being on a little device.
    I just like the nice and simple iPod. I'm not bothered about CoverFlow or colour screens or games.

    And using a touchscreen iPod without taking it out of your pocket will be a bit awkward....

    Nice large capacity for higher quality encoding. That's all I'm interested in.
     
  15. Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #15
    I agree. I can't even see the point of video on an iPod :D
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    #16
    My guess is that in two years (Sept of 2009) Apple will release a 256GB Flash Based iPod touch, by then Starbucks will already be entirely itunesified, and my itunes library will have already grown past that :D. By that time, it will be time to drop Hard Drives.
     
  17. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    I'd have liked to have seen greater capacity on the Touch but to be honest, of the 6,000+ songs I have on my ipod, I could probably live without 90% very comfortably.
     
  18. macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    You are the reason they kept the iPod classic :)
     
  19. dcv
    macrumors G3

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    #19
    To be honest I'm more interested in the big screen and Wi-Fi than the iPod function!

    I'd like something similar to my Nokia 770 internet tablet only with a better GUI, more memory and better text entry, etc.

    The iPod Touch has the decent memory but the screen is probably too small to be that useable for web browsing. My Nokia tablet is 800px wide which is great. I have no idea what the text entry would be like on the iPod Touch though. The fact that it's also an iPod is useful for travelling as I'd only have to take the one device... but just based on the tiny screen resolution I probably won't bother buying it. It's not much different from me just using my mobile phone.

    Dammit Apple, where's me ultraportable or travel tablet device?!!
     
  20. macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #20
    And very glad I am about it too.

    I'm merely pointing out that everyone has different views on what is good and what is bad.

    As a concept I like the Touch, but I wouldn't buy one because as a complete package it's not what I want.


    dcv If they added Mail to the Touch and maybe a cut down verision of iWork, then I'd view it as a completely different device and would gladly buy one.:)
     
  21. macrumors 601

    PowerFullMac

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    #21
    You lot need to chill? I got a 1GB Nano and only use just over half of that and yes I have 2 videos on there (and they are uncompressed for iPod Linux). 16GB is plenty, and when/if we do have a 80GB one or whatever next you will be going "Hey, this dosent play true HD video or Blu-ray disks! And what about Photoshop? This is terrible! Im not buying this!"

    If you want a lot of memory and a decent screen, get a MacBook!
     
  22. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    #22
    I for one, am gonna go with the touch.

    and with over 15,000 songs in my library, i dont have a problem switching around the 16gb of music every daily. Its what ive been doing with my nano and pretty much put my video to rest.

    I think somewhere down the road i would like to have the 160 for trips and stuff, but you cant beat the safari especiially since im in NYC
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    #23
    If you're tired of hearing the same "they should have put a hard drive in it" "omg they didn't for this and this reason" "i'm not buying one" "omg y not r u teh crazy" "apple really messed up by doing this because it doesn't fit my wants/needs" (etc, etc, etc)

    Type: Me Two

    Me Three, etc.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    No.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    watcher2001

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Location:
    38° 12'47.72" N 85° 31'54.63" W
    #25
    Couldn't you access your mail via a web interface via the wi-f1?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page