WTH! no ipod nano 32gb? why?

Discussion in 'iPod' started by michael31986, Sep 9, 2009.

  1. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #1
    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.
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    Unspoken Demise

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Location:
    >9,000
    #2
    Because they need to keep things interesting. Now next year you'll want a 32GB, they'll provide it, you'll buy it.

    :apple: is in no rush to give you everything you want.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 68030

    TheBritishBloke

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #4
    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?)
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #5
    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!
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    dopey220

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 68030

    TheBritishBloke

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #7
    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.
     
  8. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #8
    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?
     
  9. macrumors 68030

    TheBritishBloke

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #9
    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 ;)
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #10
    what battery life is better new 160gb classic or old 160gb classic version.
     
  11. macrumors 68030

    TheBritishBloke

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #11
    New ofcourse. As I said, the other had two drives, which means more spinning, which means more power required.
     
  12. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #12
    apparently i read online that the old 160gb still had longer batter. at almost 50 hours.
     
  13. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    #13
    I'm with you. I can't believe they added all these features and no 32GB. Crazy...
     
  14. macrumors 603

    rgarjr

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles Area
    #14
    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.
     
  15. Guest

    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    illegallydead

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado!!!
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Location:
    Mildura
    #17
    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...
     
  18. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    #18
    OK, but you'll pay in sound quality

    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.
     
  19. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #21
    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.:(
     
  22. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    #22
    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.
     
  23. spyguy10709, Mar 11, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2013

    macrumors 6502a

    spyguy10709

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Location:
    One Infinite Loop, Cupertino CA
    #23
    Nope.
    Get an iPod touch.

    What car unit do you have that's so small you can't fit an iPhone??
     
  24. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    #24
    I have a 7th gen. Nano and 16Gb is big enough. I also have a 64Gb 5th gen. Touch
     
  25. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page