60GB iPods - Not Soon?

[SiliconAddict]

Yah, but then by that rationale, I would need a 200+ GB iPod to have all my music "on hand"...

True. But we are obviously limited by the technology on hand. If Apple HAS these drives available to them and are holding out on us because Steve is pissed. That, IMHO, isn't a business decision. That is a personal grudge and a possible earmark of someone who isn't totally stable. Steve wants to be pissed. That's fine. You don't possibly screw over the company you are leading because of it.

 

[iMeowbot]

Anything that gets more recognition is good for Apple, er. Mac.

It's that halo effect Apple keep talking about, and which they believe is beginning to take root. "Mmmmm, iPod good and crunchy. Mac make iPod. Mac good too? Me try Mac. With cheese!"

 

[croooow]

If there isn't a big demand then don't make 100,000 of them. (25K? 50K?) The point is that there IS a demand for them. And if Apple is sitting on this product because they are all pissed and bothered because Tosh announced that THIER product was being used by Apple. That is a BS reason. In the previous cases ATI announced an actual Apple product. OK. So sure. Apple deserves to get pissed. In this case Tosh simple announced that Apple had, or will be purchasing their product. Now call me funny but Tosh isn't being ruled by Apple. They have every damn right to try and make their products look better by saying Apple will be using them. Screw Apple and their dictator like BS.

It's not a dictatorship. No one is force to sell to Apple or buy from Apple. My point was the wise buisness decision is to make 20/40GB ipods and make enough of them to supply all those who would pay for it. More people will be happy with a $400 40GB iPod than a $500 60GB iPod. Sure you aren't making everyone happy but you can never make EVERYONE happy.

I'm sure toshiba didn't help things with their announcement, but I don't believe Apple is just sitting on the 60GB iPods out of spite. I am sure if they think they could make money that would outweigh any feelings they have toward Toshiba (who probably has already recieved their money)

 

[Max Miles]

guys, what about putting a 60 GB hard drive into an iPod yourself? Could this be done?

 

[markayak]

while we're nitpicking on semantics...

Mac is the name of the computer Apple makes. Your statement above shows you don't know the difference between Apple and Macintosh. You might as well have said Beatle is going to have four doors soon, when you should have said Volkswagen is going to have four doors on its Beatle soon (not that it is!). Apple is the company name. Macintosh, with a nickname of Mac is the name of the operating system Apple makes for its Macintosh computers.

A Beatle is either John, Paul, George or Ringo. They're the only folks who spell it with an A, because a man who came down from the sky on a flaming pie told them to. The car Volkswagen makes is called the Beetle, or actually, the New Beetle.

 

[morkintosh]

ding ding ding, we have a winner

I'd buy a 60gig if it had video out. Other than that I'd have no use for 60gigs of music, but I am sure there are people out there that would fill that up. Especially if they were using Apple Lossless to encode their music.

Maybe, just maybe that is what all those 60gig drive are for ... a new video iPod that is having some production troubles, hence the "not anytime soon comment".

"Can I have a G5 iMac?"
"sure! at WWD, ummmm errr, I mean not any time soon!"

 

[dschneiter]

Compelling prices? - No, not really...

I think Apple's iPod marketing is not really "fair play"...

The new models are claimed to come with a hefty price reduction, as they are 100$ cheaper than the previous models. But as some of you might have noticed, the 40 GByte model no longer includes neither a remote control nor a belt clip while the 20 GByte model even lacks the dock.

Ok, the new ones are still cheaper than the old ones, but in Europe the difference is just within the range of 10 to 15 dollars

 

[Penman]

How many people would have over 20 GB of purchased music?

I have over 350 GB's of purchased music and still buy a few CD's a week. I've never spent a dime buying music online and won't until I can get at least uncompressed CD quality.

I had a 30GB and then a month later the 40GB came out and made me feel stupid. Apple can stay at 40GB in their biggest model only as long as the competition is staying there too. When Tosh bring the drive to market other manufacturers wil ljump on them and Apple will too. I hope. Otherwise I forsee this:

"Yeah, well the Rio's 60GB but the 40GB Apple has equivalent capacity in real terms. You can't compare them. It's the old capacity myth."

 

[XForge]

Yeah! I sent a request to Apple for a Quad 4.0ghz G5 and a 52 inch display and the told me "not anytime soon" WTF?

Hehee, and I sent a request to Apple for them to send me enough money to buy such a thing, still no answer...

 

[bkopi]

I'd buy a 60gig if it had video out. Other than that I'd have no use for 60gigs of music, but I am sure there are people out there that would fill that up. Especially if they were using Apple Lossless to encode their music.

what is Apple Lossless?

 

[ccrandall77]

Maybe, just maybe that is what all those 60gig drive are for ... a new video iPod that is having some production troubles, hence the "not anytime soon comment".

I'm also hoping for a vPod with a 60GB capacity. I know a lot of people blow a gasket when mention of a vPod is uttered, but there are a lot of us who would take advantage of such a device if it existed.

In the beginning, I really wanted Apple to come out with a larger color screen so we could view movies on the device. But maybe that's too big of a step for now... although I do use my Zaurus C760 a lot to watch movies and it works great. So, I think those complaining about such a feature have just never taken the time to try it out.

I think the best thing Apple (or a company like Belkin) could do would be to take advantage of the latest PortaPlayer chip in an optional, add-on dock and slip-on sleeve (for portability). This would have video in/out, wifi, bluetooth, etc. integrated into it. That would seem to be the best of both worlds... satisfyng those of us who want more functionality and those that just want an audio player.

While I was disappointed with the G4 iPods, I think it makes the iPod much more competitive against offerings from companies like Creative. Now there's only a $30 difference between the Zen Touch and iPod and the battery life gap is a little closer now.

However, I was hoping that Apple would at least move to the brushed aluminium case with regular, non-pastel colors. I like the way the iPod looks now, but no matter how hard you try, it scratches way too easily and looks worn rather quickly. If they'd done that, I might've been slightly tempted to upgrade even if the feature set remained the same.

 

[egor]

I've just got one problem with people who have a need for 60g ipods.

I UNDERSTAND there are people out there that have massive music libraries. I understand that you want it to be high quality stuff (not 128kb/s ****). And I realise you don't really want smart playlists or more than one pod cos you want it all on one device, its much cooler.

But just one thing. How the hell do you manage to accumulate so much music? Do you just have bad taste? I mean, ****, I couldn't find 20gb of music I like, and my tastes are rather eclectic. There simply is just too much crap out there and not enough good stuff for me to fathom how this could be so. Now, I understand we all have different tastes, for instance, whoever is reading this might consider my stuff crap, and their's good, but then their idea of quality will be parallel to mine, surely? As in, there is alot of crap around (and they'd consider the stuff I like a part of that).

Well, anyway, if someone can explain this to me, it'd be much appreciated...

 

[sushi]

Until you can project a 36 - 65 " equivalent screen into my eyes a 4" or 6" or hell even 19" screen is totally worthless to me. You also would need to replicate 5.1 surround at a minimum with DD and DTS. Otherwise, it's an expensive toy with no intrinsic value.

The key part of your arguement is "worthless to me."

Others think differently. Not everyone needs this capability to enjoy video. In fact, some folks enjoy it on screens as small as a cell phone.

Sushi

 

[sushi]

True. But we are obviously limited by the technology on hand. If Apple HAS these drives available to them and are holding out on us because Steve is pissed. That, IMHO, isn't a business decision. That is a personal grudge and a possible earmark of someone who isn't totally stable. Steve wants to be pissed. That's fine. You don't possibly screw over the company you are leading because of it.

Give it a rest.

First of all, no one on this board knows the complete story.

Second, NDAs are very important. If you violate one, you pay the price. So if Toshiba violated theirs concerning the iPod/60GB HDs, then they are wrong. If so, then SJ has every right to reinforce what the NDA means in whatever method he and the board choose.

Sushi

 

[jimsowden]

I've just got one problem with people who have a need for 60g ipods.

I UNDERSTAND there are people out there that have massive music libraries. I understand that you want it to be high quality stuff (not 128kb/s ****). And I realise you don't really want smart playlists or more than one pod cos you want it all on one device, its much cooler.

But just one thing. How the hell do you manage to accumulate so much music? Do you just have bad taste? I mean, ****, I couldn't find 20gb of music I like, and my tastes are rather eclectic. There simply is just too much crap out there and not enough good stuff for me to fathom how this could be so. Now, I understand we all have different tastes, for instance, whoever is reading this might consider my stuff crap, and their's good, but then their idea of quality will be parallel to mine, surely? As in, there is alot of crap around (and they'd consider the stuff I like a part of that).

Well, anyway, if someone can explain this to me, it'd be much appreciated...

I have about 800mb of music in my iTunes. I don't have one full CD, because every band puts crappy filler songs that I know I'm never going to listen to. I can't imagine just importing every cd I have and standing listening to it. And in a worthless high codec to boot. Sheesh.

 

[sushi]

I have about 800mb of music in my iTunes. I don't have one full CD, because every band puts crappy filler songs that I know I'm never going to listen to. I can't imagine just importing every cd I have and standing listening to it. And in a worthless high codec to boot. Sheesh.

No kidding! Totally agree!

I have over 600 CDs. In some cases I copy all of the songs on the CD. However, in most cases most (about 80-85%) of my CDs have only one or two songs that I like.

That is one reason that I like iTMS so much! Only need to DL the songs that I like. So instead of purchasing a whole CD for $10, wasting $9 of it. I just buy one song for 99 cents. Cost effective if you ask me.

...also space effective since I don't need a rediculously big iPod to have all my tunes!

Sushi

 

[egor]

I have about 800mb of music in my iTunes. I don't have one full CD, because every band puts crappy filler songs that I know I'm never going to listen to. I can't imagine just importing every cd I have and standing listening to it. And in a worthless high codec to boot. Sheesh.

Well, I could name some groups you NEED to listen to their albums all the way through, Pink Floyd for example, maybe not 'The Wall' but certain 'Wish You Were Here', and Godspeed You Black Emperor. But thats another matter entirely.

And thanks Sushi and jim, that helps explain alot! I can't fathom having 600 cds... but it hadn't occured to me some people buy whole albums just for a couple of songs (you're bonkers ).

 

[Max Miles]

let's try that again

guys, what about putting a 60 GB hard drive into an iPod yourself? Could this be done? Anybody know?

 

[bonk]

I'd say this announcement is just marketing talk for "We are bringing out a 60GB but if we tell you, your just going to hold out from buying that 40GB. Buy the 40GB children, there's nooooo such thing as a 60."

Maybe, maybe not.

these are not the droids you're looking for

 

[iMeowbot]

guys, what about putting a 60 GB hard drive into an iPod yourself? Could this be done? Anybody know?

There really isn't any way to know yet. They won't even begin building the drive until August or September at the earliest. Electrically everything will likely be compatible, but the only way to know if the software is able to cope with the new drive will be to buy one and plug it in. iPod drives are Apple-branded, so there's a very good chance that they contain custom firmware that would be lacking in a Toshiba-branded unit.

 

[drlunanerd]

guys, what about putting a 60 GB hard drive into an iPod yourself? Could this be done? Anybody know?

60GB 1.8 inch drives are not available now, so this is slightly hypothetical isn't it?

It's probably possible though, assuming physical constraints are not an issue. There has been speculation that the 40GB iPod would have the same dimensions as a hypothetical 60GB model as the drive is purported to be the same physical size (2 platters but higher density). I'd expect some soldering would be required though.

In any case you'll pay way more to buy a 60GB drive than Apple would, so it wouldn't be cost-effective. Much better to buy a 40GB now if you need/want it, then sell it if you can't live without a 60GB model if they ever surface.

 

[dizastor]

P.S.: funny how "iCam" is "iMac" backwards.

actually iMac backwards is caMi

maybe apple will start making girls clothing.

 

[Max Miles]

Oh

Oh, I presumed Toshiba's announcement meant they had them available.

thanks

 

[manu chao]

do you have any idea what you're talking about?

yes, raid0 makes things a bit faster, but it also has zero error-tolerance, which means should either drive fail you lose everything. raid0 cannot be reconstructed and having one without backup is even more risky than having a single hard drive that you kick every now and then.

raid1 on the other hand is slower than single drive. while it offers error tolerance, it will take double the time to write anything to the raid array of two drives, and the read performance of a software raid is not optimized either. so you get a backup but will also take a performance hit.

you would have to have a very huge raid array to make many 3600rpm (?) or even 4200rpm drives achieve the speed of a single 7200rpm drive. have you ever wondered why the REAL raid arrays of the server cabinet run 10000rpm or 15000rpm speeds? raid is not used to get more speed. it is used to get more fault tolerance. (yes, it can be optimized for speed, too, but that requires a hardware raid controller.)

I'm glad somebody replied to my post.

I freely admit, I have no first hand experience with any kind of RAID array. But I'm not really sure who is the one of the two of us who does not know what he is talking about.

RAID arrays can, as far as I know, be used for three purposes (and combinations thereof):

- live mirroring (ensuring data integrity when a physical drives fails)
- creating a bigger 'virtual' drive (if you have a lot of data)
- creating a faster drive (e.g. for capturing video at high resolution, or streaming of data)
The first purpose (or combinations including it) is probably what most RAID arrays are used for.

But the last option, a striped array (the second option is also a striped array, to be precise), also is used a lot.

I admit that the risk of data loss essentially doubles (due to a harddrive failure) when you use two drives for a striped array but that does not have to be a show-stopper. What I don't know is whether OS X can boot from a soft RAID if not this could be a deal-breaker since a hardware RAID might be too expensive still.

Here is one example of not-so-serious striped array which clearly shows how this can speed up transfer speeds: http://ohlssonvox.8k.com/fdd_raid.htma
And naturally, if your main aim is speed, as in a server, you start with the fastest drives available and then build a RAID with them (10 000 to 15 000 rpm drives), but in a Powerbook you have to balance speed against size and power consumption.

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

raid1 on the other hand is slower than single drive. while it offers error tolerance, it will take double the time to write anything to the raid array of two drives, and the read performance of a software raid is not optimized either. so you get a backup but will also take a performance hit.

On most RAID-1 implementations both reads and writes are done in parallel. As such you get an average 50% improvement in first seek on reads and you lose the same amount on writes.

Sustained reads and writes are about the same as an unmirrored drive, plus or minus any overhead of an underpowered controller/bus.