Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPod Apple to abandon next gen HDD based iPod...

Flash work fine for video

I don't know why people here complain about 32 GB being not enough space for video. If you go 1080p, 32 GB are indeed just one movie, but consider the resolution of the regular video iPod (320x240) and iPhone (480x320).

Try Quicktime Pro or Handbrake and compress a whole movie is 320x240 in h2.64 in stereo sound (you don't need surround sound on your iPod, do you?). Start with ridiculously low bitrates and increase it until it looks good on your iPod. Maybe make a super high quality version as a reference. You will find out that you don't need that much space for videos.

Then there is the fact that the way you "consume" music is totally different from the way you "consume" a movie. A (good) song will be listened to over and over. Did you ever watch the same DVD twice in a month? Seriously?
Lots of storage for music makes sense, I personally like it when I don't hear the same stuff over and over when my nano is in shuffle all day. But honestly, TV shows and movies are more like a podcast: listen once, done, next.

I personally think it's ridiculous to watch videos on regular iPods, the screen is just too small and not widescreen. Subtitles must be a pain to read. The iPhone seems to be the perfect blend of small size and big screen. Well... it is basically just a big screen :p

Too bad I'm used to high def (720p) though, DVDs actually look terrible on an HDTV. Either too blurry or too compressed. Even HD TV-shows suck big time because they use old codecs and simply don't have enough bandwidth. Even the japanese Hi-Vision (analog high def) looks better. BlueRay and HD-DVD look great but it's a lot of data...

Back on topic: You don't need or want your entire movie collection on your iPod. 32 GB is plenty. There's a big Torrent file out there with ALL Simpsons episodes (from Season 1 to 17) and it was around 40 GB last time I checked...
 
How about the speed of NAND vs. HDD?

I've read somewhere that iPod nanos have transfer speed of about ~5MB/s. It'll take about two hours to fill a 32GB iPod with that kind of transfer rates.
 
cupique said:
I've read somewhere that iPod nanos have transfer speed of about ~5MB/s. It'll take about two hours to fill a 32GB iPod with that kind of transfer rates.
Click to expand...

yeah that'd sound about right. remember you only really have to move 32GB of data once; after that its only a couple of dozen megs at a time.
 
Because of the fact living in germany, I don't even know how big a TV Episode or a movie from the iTS is. Could anyone here answer this?

thnx :)

Dave
 
No duh? I can predict that soon, all laptops will move away from spinning hard drives. Maybe even those new optical hard drives. As early as 2011.
 
Doubt this move will happen for sometime either but for me the best bit of this story was the report in MacRumors front page:

MacRumors said:
Of note, MacRumors has been keeping track of previous predictions and claims made by Jesse Tortora regarding upcoming Apple products, and his analyst reports have generally been inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Ouch - I hope his boss isn't reading.... ;)
 
My prediction is that they'll bump up the capacity on the iPhone prior to release.

They did the same with the first release of the Macbook Pro: before shipping the first model, they bumped the speed up.

I think the entry level iPhone will have 8 GB and the top level will have 16GB. By June, the capacities will match the price points.
 
I do wonder if Apple wont want to canabalise iPhone sales so will leave HDD this year in touchscreen iPods and flash in iPhones.
 
Current estimates are that Apple pays about $10 per GB of flash memory, and it costs the end user about $20 per GB. That would be $1200 to replace the harddisk in the 60GB iPod with flash memory today.

I think complete replacement of harddisks is some time away. I would expect an ultra-portable notebook first with MacOS X reduced to what is absolutely necessary, no CD/DVD/harddisk, no Garageband/iDVD/iMovie, and 30 GB of flash memory.
 
Honestly, I hope this is true.

Simply put I would rather have a device with no moving parts (so it can't be internally broken, although I take great care of my things to begin with) and much longer battery life and pay a little extra than having to deal with the worry of hard drives and the worry of dropping/failure.

It sounds like something that Apple would do: make things simpler.

I say it's true. I'd buy one.
 
Multimedia said:
I want a 100GB 1.8" HD 640 x 360 widescreen Video iPod not a measley 32GB flash model. :mad:
Click to expand...

I have to say that's the only thing that will make me part with my money.

I have just over 60GB of music on my iTunes library and I've already filled my 60gb ipod. I dont want 80gb as I think it will be full within a year or so, so I want at least 100gb. To give me space for my collection to grow over the coming years.

So basically an iPhone (without the phone) and a 100gb 1.8" drive is what I really want as a 6G ipod.

If it doesnt happen and storage is smaller, then Apple wont be getting my money.
 
Not anytime soon

I just don't see this happening soon. At least not until they significantly increase the capacity of flash drives.
 
Flash iPods would rock, no moving parts, no skipping and with Apple's buying power in regaurds to Flash Memory it's sounds very feasible.

This is probably a very n00by question but is it possible to get a thing that reads SD memory card for the iPod Nano like an add-on thingy :confused:
 
Rocketman said:
A 80/120gb "iPhone/iPod" is not enough for the video you need. Thus you will have aliases to your network stored, purchased content and an iTunes like interface to put the most expected desired content on the local drive.

There. I said it.

Rocketman

ATN/ATNN (sosumi)
Click to expand...

Rocketman, I've liked your thinking on this ever since you coined 'ATN'. It just seems to make sense in the long-term...

1) :apple:TV shows that Apple are into streaming content wirelessly.
2) WiFi connections are becoming more and more common (example for Europe: http://www.thecloud.net/).
3) Really, everyone would love it if they could get all their media content (music, TV shows, movies... but also mail and documents) anywhere, anytime.

Therefore, a smaller capacity, flash device ('ATN') - therefore allowing for longer battery life, smaller form, etc. - with a WiFi connection to all of your content stored (or aliased) on a remote server is perfect... would love to see it happen :)
 
Rocketman said:
A 80/120gb "iPhone/iPod" is not enough for the video you need. Thus you will have aliases to your network stored, purchased content and an iTunes like interface to put the most expected desired content on the local drive.
Click to expand...

From my point of view... terrible idea! :D

The beauty of my iPod is that I have everything with me always. I can think of a song I've not heard in ages and start listening to it within seconds. I can be in the pub when conversation happens to turn to a holiday or a party or something and have the photos and cameraphone movies watchable by everyone there and then. A lot of the iPod's utility to me is that I don't have to try to predict 'expected or desired' content. It's all there waiting. The situation you're proposing is akin to the 'old days' of portable media - "ah, crap... I left that CD at home..."

Cepe Indicum said:
1) :apple:TV shows that Apple are into streaming content wirelessly.
Click to expand...

Streaming content wirelessly... around the home, where it makes perfect sense.

2) WiFi connections are becoming more and more common (example for Europe: http://www.thecloud.net/)
3) Really, everyone would love it if they could get all their media content (music, TV shows, movies... but also mail and documents) anywhere, anytime.
Click to expand...

... all true, but we're nowhere near the point where it makes sense to tie a device to such networks. I'd rather have my content instantly available on the device instead of having to worry about signal coverage, strength and speed (and, indeed, cost). Until public wireless coverage is fast enough to be unnoticeable, completely ubiquitous and totally free, it's not a good enough substitute.

Therefore, a smaller capacity, flash device ('ATN') - therefore allowing for longer battery life, smaller form, etc. - with a WiFi connection to all of your content stored (or aliased) on a remote server is perfect... would love to see it happen :)
Click to expand...

Not for a long time. Besides, the battery life equation doesn't work out - I'm not sure how constant wi-fi streaming would save an awful lot of power compared to the existing occasional spin-up of a hard drive to feed the 32MB RAM cache. Form-factor's not much of an issue when you consider the fact that the screen size is about as small as is useful for video playback. Your idea's all very Star Trek, but not particularly practical.
 
I'm not buying this. When they replaced the mini with the nano, they went from a top capcity of 6GB to a top capacity of 4GB. It didn't hurt them at all then, but 2GB is not as big a difference as a drop from 80GB to 32GB. That's more than half percentage wise, and Steve himdelf already said that everyone's iPods are nearly full.

In the next year or so, they need a top of the line model somewhere in the 100-120GB range, and I can see a microdrive fitting in there. But that amount of flash would simply be too expensive (even for apple).
 
displaced said:
Not for a long time. Besides, the battery life equation doesn't work out - I'm not sure how constant wi-fi streaming would save an awful lot of power compared to the existing occasional spin-up of a hard drive to feed the 32MB RAM cache. Form-factor's not much of an issue when you consider the fact that the screen size is about as small as is useful for video playback. Your idea's all very Star Trek, but not particularly practical.
Click to expand...

Hmm... interesting. I was expecting negative comments from this, but not quite this negative :eek:

Firstly, I agree, it is very Star Trek, but I didn't say (and didn't mean to imply) that this would happen any time soon!

Secondly, I also didn't say anything about "constant wi-fi streaming"... There would be nothing stopping you from syncing your content at home in the normal way as well... you could just activate WiFi, as-and-when.

It's all hypotheticals anyway...

My main thought is that I would love to have access to all my content, wherever I want, whenever I want, on a very portable device. And with all of the little things being introduced (or being rumoured) at the moment, I wonder if it might be getting closer.
 
I think the current situation is best: flash memory for people that want the most compact iPod perhaps with longest battery life, and the HD for those who want the largest possible storage space.

They should only abandon HD's if/when flash can match or exceed the capacity of the largest micro HD's.

My 80GB iPod is full, I would almost certainly plan to replace it when a 100GB or 120GB version came out.
 
Right, but ...

It seems like a pretty obvious prediction, EXCEPT the time frame. I'd bet they'll switch, just that it won't be complete in 2007. Its like saying, "I predict that we'll all move away from floppy disks, tape and punch cards." However, it is highly unlikely they'd go from 80GB to 32GB. Maybe to 64GB, but I'd be really surprised if they went to 32GB.

In the short term, my prediction is bigger HDD version(s) then as flash catches up they'll be phased out from the bottom up. And no removable card will happen, it just doesn't seem to fit with Apple's style (at least under Steve).
 
I think Apple will change the line up with the next gen iPods (just speculations of course). The Nano will be for anyone who primary wants to listen to music (small, flash-based, better battery life) with capacity up to 16 gig (that's a pretty large music collection if compressed to aac/mp3).

The 6th gen Ipod (simply called the Ipod Video) however will be more towards those who wants extra features like play video content, thus a large wide screen model (hopefully a touch screen like the iPhone) with a 1,8" hard drive until flash memory can beat(/almost beat) hard drives in terms of space.
 
elonaso said:
I think Apple will change the line up with the next gen iPods (just speculations of course). The Nano will be for anyone who primary wants to listen to music (small, flash-based, better battery life) with capacity up to 16 gig (that's a pretty large music collection if compressed to aac/mp3).

The 6th gen Ipod (simply called the Ipod Video) however will be more towards those who wants extra features like play video content, thus a large wide screen model (hopefully a touch screen like the iPhone) with a 1,8" hard drive until flash memory can beat(/almost beat) hard drives in terms of space.
Click to expand...


16GB!!
I have 62 GB and it increases by about 1GB a month.

I really want a high capacity music only iPod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back