HDD ipod touch?

Discussion in 'iPod touch' started by DanJ, Feb 7, 2008.

  1. DanJ macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    #1
    i have never owned an ipod. I got an create zen touch back when competitors were significantly cheaper than apple and gave better specs, and have never really seen a need to upgrade. the 20Gb hard drive has held all the music i have, and the battery lasts forever.

    when the ipod touch came out i finally saw a device that would really be beneficial to upgrade to. The large screen would make it worth it to watch videos, and the internet is obviously hugely useful. But I could never understand the capacity thing. Why oh why would you create a widescreen video ipod that has just enough memory to hold nothing?

    Can anyone explain to me why there is such a thing as an "ipod classic"? Why on earth would apple not not simply offer an HDD version and SSD version of the ipod touch? It really seems like apple is sacrificing extreme usefulness for the sole reason of their insane fetish for ultra-slim electronics.

    The ipod touch is 0.31" thick. the ipod classic is 0.41" and 0.53" for the 80 and 160 GB versions respectfully. Thats a full 66% more thickness between the touch and the classes. If there is this much room it would obviously be possible to incorporate an HDD without the touch being too big.

    for me 32GB is just starting to be reasonable, and I not about to shell out what apple is asking for barely reasonable. I think there are many people like me who dont like having to manage their media every night to prepare for the next day.

    It seems like a 160GB ipod touch would be the end-all portable media device, but instead we have a product that isnt even worth upgrading my 4 year old b&w liquid crystal creative zen for. With this technology being so new and expensive (although not quite as expensive as apple would lead you to believe) why would apple decide to throw away what would be such a great device? Or is that the reason right there? Is apple actually doing this because they know that someone with a 160GB ipod touch would not have to upgrade for years and years?
     
  2. ReanimationLP macrumors 68030

    ReanimationLP

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Location:
    On the moon.
    #2
    It'd be nice of them.

    Flash memory is still way expensive, I mean, look at the price of a 32GB Touch.

    I'd love to see a touch with an 80GB HD, for around 350 or so.

    Guarantee ya it'll never happen though.
     
  3. aethelbert macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #3
    1. It would be much thicker.
    2. Battery life would suck even more than it does now.
    3. It would be a lot slower. People complain about the iPod classic being sluggish... imagine the entire OS from the touch running on that.
    4. Flash is where the market is heading now. By 2010, we'll probably see 128GB flash players, maybe even 256 by the end of that year.
     
  4. -Dark Angel- macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    #4
    Hmmm no, flash seems to be the popular choice for memory now on portable devices for their battery life, less time accessing the disk. Also people would complain about the slowness of the device itself. iPod classic runs fine for being a simple UI but it would be worst on the touch itself with its mini Mac OSX os on it.
     
  5. DanJ thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    #5
    -it couldn't possibly be THAT much thicker than the classics are now and they are even still quite thin, it would hardly be debiliattingly thick
    - hows does battery life suck? is apple just explicitly lying on the website when it claims 22 hours for the touch, and 30/40 hours for the two classics?
    -would it really be that slow? I mean the zune has widscreen video, so it ms can do it certainly apple can do it better
    -thats just the point though, that its going to take years to get to were we are right now...
     
  6. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #6
    I would love one. But I think people who just want the "iPod" may not want to go the route of a Touch.

    I can see the Touch staying the way it is and using flash memory. Sort of the "WiFi" enabled handheld multimedia device.

    I would still like to see a Touchscreen "Classic" that you can only load with video and audio.

    Sort of like the attached mockup I got from somewhere when people were speculating a 6G iPod (which became the Touch).

    New iPod "Classic":

    80 Gig or 160 Gig HD
    Touchscreen
    Video and Audio only, no special apps (hackable, of course)

    $249 and $349

    Possible as the price of the Touchscreens Apple uses for the Touch/iPhone goes down...
     

    Attached Files:

  7. aethelbert macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #7
    1. Yes it could. You have to add the HDD to it. Flash doesn't make any thickness. It would be thick and then people would complain about that.

    2. Yeah, Apple's information about the battery isn't really accurate. You'll get about 4 hours of video off of flash, but it would be much less with a hard drive. I would guess about 2.5 hours, maybe less. Turn on wifi or full brightness and you're not going to get even that.

    3. Yes, it would be. I'm not talking about media playback, but the entire interface.

    4. It won't take that long... Only like 2 years... You'll live.

    Also, the touch interface really sucks for huge libraries. The interface of the click wheel is much better for huge libraries.
     
  8. aft macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    #8
    Completely agree with everything else you said, but I like the touch better for huge libraries where you can just touch the letter that you want to go to. I think I was developing some sort of tendon carpal tunnel type thing with my 4th gen iPod.;)
     
  9. ltldrummerboy macrumors 68000

    ltldrummerboy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    #9
    I wouldn't mind having an iPod Touch even if it was twice the thickness. On battery life, what about a 4gb flash chip for the OS and SDK apps, and 80gb HD for content? It seems to me that this configuration wouldn't kill the battery too fast. Not likely to happen, though. I guess I'll just wait until the 32gb model gets a price cut.
     
  10. Ernest macrumors newbie

    Ernest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    #10
    Not only is the Hard drive thicker it will also need a bigger battery to have reasonable battery life, making it even more thick.
    Hard Drives are too slow for the quick iPod touch needs, it would be slow and sluggish.
    Flash drives are also more durable and reliable.
    8gigs, and certainly 16gigs is enough for any normal person with some sort of music taste/knowledge.
     

Share This Page