Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
4GB 'iPod Mini' and 15GB iPod
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If they announced it was a prank, I would be FURIOUS as an investor, and as a consumer, I'd be pretty bummed that I would have to buy a Rio product instead of an Apple product.
But somehow, I'm not too worried about it.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?family=iPodmini
But somehow, I'm not too worried about it.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?family=iPodmini
Abstract
macrumors Penryn
This is just a ploy to sell more 15GB iPods. Yes, Steve said that they're competing with the high end flash players, but does it really matter what Steve said? Yes, other HD based players are priced similarly, but this doesn't mean that they're priced right. They're not priced to succeed. I don't care if you buy a mini-iPod or a Creative 4GB player (coming soon), or whatever other 2 or 4GB players you can think of that are $200+. The fact is that all these players (Apple, Creative, et al.) are priced wrong at $250 since $300 will get you a much better 15GB iPod.
Ultimately, Apple is always competing with their own players. If a regular Joe Shmo goes to the Apple site to check out an iPod, they're going to see the 15GB iPod for $300 and the 4GB m-iPod for $250 and think, "Geez, what a rip-off it is for the m-iPod!!" Yes, maybe Steve said they're aiming for the flash player market, but all they're really doing is making the 15GB look like a steal. What Steve is saying is bull****.
And as for the "smaller size", its not like the iPod is very big, and its not as if the m-iPod is much smaller than the regular iPod.
As a fan of flash players (I'm looking at an iRiver 192MB player because of the price, and the fact that it uses replaceable an AA or AAA battery), the size of the m-iPod still isn't enticing, and isn't a factor in my decision. The iPod and the m-iPod may as well be the same size for all I care. It's still too big to be useful for ultra-portable lovers.
Plus the battery life sucks.
Ultimately, Apple is always competing with their own players. If a regular Joe Shmo goes to the Apple site to check out an iPod, they're going to see the 15GB iPod for $300 and the 4GB m-iPod for $250 and think, "Geez, what a rip-off it is for the m-iPod!!" Yes, maybe Steve said they're aiming for the flash player market, but all they're really doing is making the 15GB look like a steal. What Steve is saying is bull****.
And as for the "smaller size", its not like the iPod is very big, and its not as if the m-iPod is much smaller than the regular iPod.
As a fan of flash players (I'm looking at an iRiver 192MB player because of the price, and the fact that it uses replaceable an AA or AAA battery), the size of the m-iPod still isn't enticing, and isn't a factor in my decision. The iPod and the m-iPod may as well be the same size for all I care. It's still too big to be useful for ultra-portable lovers.
Plus the battery life sucks.
It is smaller in comparison with the iPod than a 12" Powerbook is in comparison with a 17" Powerbook.
If it's not the product you're looking for, buy something else. It is the product that a lot of others are looking for and it'll sell very well.
the price
The price is actually pretty low for what you get with today's technology. If you compare the mini and the 15GB iPod you are making a bad comparison.
Smaller of the same high quality always costs more to produce.(laptop to desktop) And the small HD's are new and not yet high volume so the price to produce these miniPods are high . I bet that this is now one of Apples lowest margin products right now. The margins will go up as the miniature drive prices go down. But then so will the prices of the larger ipod drives.
What do you get that costs so much or so little depending on your point of view. Apple might have been better to offer it at $299 not $249 ... so that the comparison would be different
Smaller...
Better scroll wheel...
less obtrusive..
a technological marvel ...
larger hard drives to come...
I have two diabetic kids who wear pumps all the time and the size of the device is very important to them, The both have iPods but they drooled over the mini Pods and would have preffered them instead.
I may get one for myself ...
When you wear a device the smaller the better.
The price is actually pretty low for what you get with today's technology. If you compare the mini and the 15GB iPod you are making a bad comparison.
Smaller of the same high quality always costs more to produce.(laptop to desktop) And the small HD's are new and not yet high volume so the price to produce these miniPods are high . I bet that this is now one of Apples lowest margin products right now. The margins will go up as the miniature drive prices go down. But then so will the prices of the larger ipod drives.
What do you get that costs so much or so little depending on your point of view. Apple might have been better to offer it at $299 not $249 ... so that the comparison would be different
Smaller...
Better scroll wheel...
less obtrusive..
a technological marvel ...
larger hard drives to come...
I have two diabetic kids who wear pumps all the time and the size of the device is very important to them, The both have iPods but they drooled over the mini Pods and would have preffered them instead.
I may get one for myself ...
When you wear a device the smaller the better.
Despite already owning an iPod, I ordered a silver iPod mini right away. Honestly, there are not more than 1,000 songs in existence that I want to listen to...and the iPod mini's ultra-compact design makes it even more ideal for activities such as working out. My younger sister balked at the idea of buying an iPod in the past...But one look at the pink mini and she shelled out the $250. Teenage girls buy more music than any other segment of the public, and they're gonna eat up the iPod mini. Rumor is that the mini will drop to $200 by summer...So all this outrage seems somewhat baseless. After all, digital music players under $200 at this moment are complete junk. The iPod remains the better choice for users with large libraries and the desire to use it as a HD, but the iPod mini might be a better fit for the casual music listeners/fashion/design conscious.
Uh, right...
Someone who doesn't really care about $50 said the following:
"Most people truly do not need more than 4 GB" of storage in an mp3 player.
What? Who are these "most people"? People who kind of enjoy music but not really? People who's musical tastes mirror the same 20 songs played endlessly on radio? Isn't that why we got ipods, so we can hear what we want to hear whenever and wherever we want? I'd love to hear what kind of market research you collected to come to that 4 GB capacity statement. Steve Jobs himself used the example of the mini ipod being something of a supplemental device to it's higher capacity big brother when he talked about using one for taking his entire music collection on vacation, the other for a trip to the gym. Fair enough. But if you really want portability of a decent collection of your favorite music, saying 4 GB is enough is simply not true. As for the handful of CD's that make up your mini-music collection - I guess the mini is the perfect product for a music-minimalist such as yourself. As for the rest of us, well, lets just say my 40gb ipod is just perfect, thanks....
Someone who doesn't really care about $50 said the following:
"Most people truly do not need more than 4 GB" of storage in an mp3 player.
What? Who are these "most people"? People who kind of enjoy music but not really? People who's musical tastes mirror the same 20 songs played endlessly on radio? Isn't that why we got ipods, so we can hear what we want to hear whenever and wherever we want? I'd love to hear what kind of market research you collected to come to that 4 GB capacity statement. Steve Jobs himself used the example of the mini ipod being something of a supplemental device to it's higher capacity big brother when he talked about using one for taking his entire music collection on vacation, the other for a trip to the gym. Fair enough. But if you really want portability of a decent collection of your favorite music, saying 4 GB is enough is simply not true. As for the handful of CD's that make up your mini-music collection - I guess the mini is the perfect product for a music-minimalist such as yourself. As for the rest of us, well, lets just say my 40gb ipod is just perfect, thanks....
If you can only fit 20 songs on 4 GB, you are doing something wrong.
And if you listen to more than 1,000 songs during your workouts, you have a hell of an exercise regimine.
Start paying attention to how many songs you actually listen to - as opposed to having "just in case", or that you press the skip button whenever they come on. I doubt it's more than 100 at a given time or say 300 in an average month.
Go to the checkout with the iPOD mini
They are engraving them for free!!
That really drives a hard bargain now!!!!!
p.s. I listened to ~750 iTunes songs last month between the iPod and the iMac, in case you were wondering.
They are engraving them for free!!
That really drives a hard bargain now!!!!!
p.s. I listened to ~750 iTunes songs last month between the iPod and the iMac, in case you were wondering.
"Decent collection"?
Get over yourself. Your post sounds the same as a hundred others in this thread. "Waah! Apple didn't get my personal approval on the specs and pricing. They're idiots! Waaaah!"
Which part of "high-end flash market" don't you understand? The fact is, Apple isn't marketing the mini to you. You may believe that there isn't much of a market for a 4GB player, but Apple and a number of other companies think otherwise. I'll go with their research over your self-absorbed, tunnel-vision whining any day.
You need to get out more, dude. Seriously.
Get over yourself. Your post sounds the same as a hundred others in this thread. "Waah! Apple didn't get my personal approval on the specs and pricing. They're idiots! Waaaah!"
Which part of "high-end flash market" don't you understand? The fact is, Apple isn't marketing the mini to you. You may believe that there isn't much of a market for a 4GB player, but Apple and a number of other companies think otherwise. I'll go with their research over your self-absorbed, tunnel-vision whining any day.
You need to get out more, dude. Seriously.
SD is winning out.
I own both. I don't care a lot one way or the other - CF is cheaper per capacity, but SD's smaller size is a blessing to engineers designing devices that use memory cards.
SD is in the same "class" as Memory Stick, as far as physical size and max capacities, but is a bit cheaper. It is more expensive than CF, but it's radically smaller, so that's maybe not the best comparison.
For cameras, I like CF because of the bigger capacities, but it seems more and more cameras are going to SD. My brother, dad and nephew just got digital cameras, and all are SD. I have a 1 GB card in my Canon S50, but will be willing to switch to SD if I need to in the future to get a camera I like.
PDAs are primarily SD, other than Sony.
And picture adding a CF mechanism to an iPod Mini ... shudder. Now picture adding an SD mechanism.
I own both. I don't care a lot one way or the other - CF is cheaper per capacity, but SD's smaller size is a blessing to engineers designing devices that use memory cards.
SD is in the same "class" as Memory Stick, as far as physical size and max capacities, but is a bit cheaper. It is more expensive than CF, but it's radically smaller, so that's maybe not the best comparison.
For cameras, I like CF because of the bigger capacities, but it seems more and more cameras are going to SD. My brother, dad and nephew just got digital cameras, and all are SD. I have a 1 GB card in my Canon S50, but will be willing to switch to SD if I need to in the future to get a camera I like.
PDAs are primarily SD, other than Sony.
And picture adding a CF mechanism to an iPod Mini ... shudder. Now picture adding an SD mechanism.
sushi
Moderator emeritus
Re: Uh, right...
How many here with 40GB iPods listen to all the music on their iPod?
I doubt very few even come close.
I encode my MP3s at 256K, 44.1, True Separate Channel Stereo, which results in about 2MB per minute of encoding.
Guys, on a 4GB iPod mini, that's over 34 hours of music. That means if you listen to music for 8 hours a day, it would take over 4 days of continuous listening before I hear the same song twice.
At more common encodings, it would be over 7 days.
And that is with a 4GB iPod mini.
A 40GB model would have 10 times that much.
With FW and the ease of syncing a playlist so easily with iTunes, unless you need to carry a huge collection of music with you at all times, the large space is not needed to enjoy a wide variety of music.
For those with huge collections, how many have an equal number average on their count play? I would bet that you have quite a few songs with a very low play count.
...and of course, the songs that you really like have high counts.
Anyhow, I would love to hear if anybody has played their entire collection on a 40GB iPod from start to finish. At my encoding, that would take 13 days at 24/7 or 39 days listening 8 hours per day.
And if you use a more common 192 encoding, that's over 50 days.
Anybody out there done that?
Sushi
You are kidding, right?!
How many here with 40GB iPods listen to all the music on their iPod?
I doubt very few even come close.
I encode my MP3s at 256K, 44.1, True Separate Channel Stereo, which results in about 2MB per minute of encoding.
Guys, on a 4GB iPod mini, that's over 34 hours of music. That means if you listen to music for 8 hours a day, it would take over 4 days of continuous listening before I hear the same song twice.
At more common encodings, it would be over 7 days.
And that is with a 4GB iPod mini.
A 40GB model would have 10 times that much.
With FW and the ease of syncing a playlist so easily with iTunes, unless you need to carry a huge collection of music with you at all times, the large space is not needed to enjoy a wide variety of music.
For those with huge collections, how many have an equal number average on their count play? I would bet that you have quite a few songs with a very low play count.
...and of course, the songs that you really like have high counts.
Anyhow, I would love to hear if anybody has played their entire collection on a 40GB iPod from start to finish. At my encoding, that would take 13 days at 24/7 or 39 days listening 8 hours per day.
And if you use a more common 192 encoding, that's over 50 days.
Anybody out there done that?
Sushi
sushi
Moderator emeritus
I think you are being a bit premature on your SD is winning.
CF is up to 6GB now. You can buy 1GB almost everywhere. Soon they will have 12GB coming off the design boards.
SD is way behind in capacity.
And it won't catch up simply due to size/space considerations.
Here in Japan, mini SD is more popular than SD is seems. Especially with cell phones and such.
IMHO, SD is not all that much smaller than CF for the trade offs in size and cost that you get.
Anyhow, cost wise, CF is less than half of the SD memory prices here.
Sushi
Re: Re: Uh, right...
It took me about 10 months to listen to every song once in my collection ~7500 songs @ 192.
I like having a jukebox that plays randomly through every song I own.
I always have a playlist going of all the music with only 1 playcount so I can keep listening to music I've forgotten about.
It took me about 10 months to listen to every song once in my collection ~7500 songs @ 192.
I like having a jukebox that plays randomly through every song I own.
I always have a playlist going of all the music with only 1 playcount so I can keep listening to music I've forgotten about.
sushi
Moderator emeritus
Re: Re: Re: Uh, right...
Cool.
10 months.
Long time.
I bet for many folks, 4GB will be more than enough.
Anyhow, time will tell.
BTW, already have e-mails coming in from around the world with folks telling me that they are going to buy an iPod mini. The price point is the most common item mentioned, then size. FWIW.
Sushi
jbembe thanks for the reply.
Cool.
10 months.
Long time.
I bet for many folks, 4GB will be more than enough.
Anyhow, time will tell.
BTW, already have e-mails coming in from around the world with folks telling me that they are going to buy an iPod mini. The price point is the most common item mentioned, then size. FWIW.
Sushi
The CF card is 36.4 mm by 42.8 mm by 3.3 mm. Those are Type I sizes. Many of the biggest capacity cards are Type II microdrives.
The SD card is 24 mm by 32 mm by 2.1 mm.
The difference in integrating the read/write mechanisms into devices is pretty big, and in many cases is more important than the capacity differences.
For similar prices, you can get 1 GB CF or 512 MB SD. For most uses, 512 MB is fine. Exceptions include high-end digital photography, and mp3 player use. If you own an iPod, the second issue will not exist.
SD isn't the be-all end-all, but if you're going to pick one format to add to the iPod Mini, SD/MMC is the best way to go. I cannot imagine what it would look like to add a CF slot, and Memory Stick would make sense only if iPods were built by Sony.
The SD card is 24 mm by 32 mm by 2.1 mm.
The difference in integrating the read/write mechanisms into devices is pretty big, and in many cases is more important than the capacity differences.
For similar prices, you can get 1 GB CF or 512 MB SD. For most uses, 512 MB is fine. Exceptions include high-end digital photography, and mp3 player use. If you own an iPod, the second issue will not exist.
SD isn't the be-all end-all, but if you're going to pick one format to add to the iPod Mini, SD/MMC is the best way to go. I cannot imagine what it would look like to add a CF slot, and Memory Stick would make sense only if iPods were built by Sony.
sushi
Moderator emeritus
Would disagree with you.
The iPod mini has plenty of room for a CF card.
And the more expensive SD (twice the cost of CF) would negate most of the benefits of owning a device that would use them.
Now mini SD I like. Very small. Makes SD look big. Not sure about the capacity limit. But cost wise, a bit more expensive than SD.
BTW, the mini SD format is popular in cell phones due to it's smaller size. SD vice CF is not that great on the physical size issue -- at least on the devices over here.
Sushi
There is plenty of size for a CF slot if you remove the other components!
I have a CF card, an SD card and a (paper) business card in front of me right now.
The CF card is about 85% as wide as the business card and about 40% as tall.
I imagine that a CF mechanism would be at least a quarter inch thick.
If you are talking about replacing the hard drive, sure, it would fit fine!
I am talking about adding a slot "just because". I think that could probably be done with SD (or xD, or maybe Memory Stick). Since SD is used in the big majority of PDAs that accept memory cards, and probably close to half of all digital cameras, that's the clear choice, IMO.
I am in the U.S. Market useage may be different in Japan. I have never seen a Mini SD card. I'm sure it's a good format for the future, but the point of adding a slot to the iPod would be to give options to consumers, and since very few people in the U.S. use those cards, that wouldn't serve much of a purpose for now.
If portable USB card readers could plug up to the iPod and be recognized through the USB port, with some interface for moving files around, that might be the best real-world plan. Apple's not about to add any kind of memory card slot, I suspect.
I have a CF card, an SD card and a (paper) business card in front of me right now.
The CF card is about 85% as wide as the business card and about 40% as tall.
I imagine that a CF mechanism would be at least a quarter inch thick.
If you are talking about replacing the hard drive, sure, it would fit fine!
I am talking about adding a slot "just because". I think that could probably be done with SD (or xD, or maybe Memory Stick). Since SD is used in the big majority of PDAs that accept memory cards, and probably close to half of all digital cameras, that's the clear choice, IMO.
I am in the U.S. Market useage may be different in Japan. I have never seen a Mini SD card. I'm sure it's a good format for the future, but the point of adding a slot to the iPod would be to give options to consumers, and since very few people in the U.S. use those cards, that wouldn't serve much of a purpose for now.
If portable USB card readers could plug up to the iPod and be recognized through the USB port, with some interface for moving files around, that might be the best real-world plan. Apple's not about to add any kind of memory card slot, I suspect.
sushi
Moderator emeritus
IC ref adding a slot. I thought you were talking instead of.
I would sure like to see a flash based player as well. I love my 256MB one that is the size of a pack of gum. It plays MP3 and WAV files, has an FM radio, and can record with the built in mic.
Anyhow, the mini SD cards are nice. but very small and pricy.
Not sure what you mean about the USB slot. The iPod mini's do not have a USB slot, nor FW for that matter. They have a Dock Connector slot that allows a cable to be connected with either a FW or USB connection at the other end.
Unfortunately, you cannot use the Belkin iPod Media Reader:
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Merchant_Id=1&Product_Id=158350
Not sure why (software or hardware issue?). But that would be a nice feature.
Sushi
NusuniAdmin
macrumors 6502a
hmmmmmm future dude!
Have any of u seen minority report, if so, remember the cool hd screens. They were the little screen doodads that showed the contents of the hd in it. I cant wait till that is real 😀
Have any of u seen minority report, if so, remember the cool hd screens. They were the little screen doodads that showed the contents of the hd in it. I cant wait till that is real 😀
Re: Re: Re: Uh, right...
I was just looking at the " 10000 song on an 40 gb iPod" statement and I have well over 2000 records.
I don't really rip any of my records but when I do, it's 192 kbps.
I was just looking at the " 10000 song on an 40 gb iPod" statement and I have well over 2000 records.
Re: hmmmmmm future dude!
That movie's technology was a little weird actually. Did you also happen to notice their use of "SneakerNet" in quite a few of the scenes where they were navigating through the future?
Like, you'd think with all their gadgetry they'd not have to copy things to disc and walk it over to a computer not 5 feet away. 😛
That movie's technology was a little weird actually. Did you also happen to notice their use of "SneakerNet" in quite a few of the scenes where they were navigating through the future?
Like, you'd think with all their gadgetry they'd not have to copy things to disc and walk it over to a computer not 5 feet away. 😛