If Apple release the 160gb iPod touch, would you buy it?

Discussion in 'iPod touch' started by Erik Chandra, May 18, 2014.

  1. Erik Chandra macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    #1
    I wonder,would you buy an ipod touch,if apple release the 160gb this september?..because,i will certanly buy it..no doubt..my ipod classic couldn't play song throught bluetooth and doesn't has built in speaker..
     
  2. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #2
    Nope. I am done with iPods after the iPhone came out.
     
  3. Jessica Lares macrumors G3

    Jessica Lares

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Location:
    Near Dallas, Texas, USA
    #3
    Yes, after they make their way into the refurbished section. :p
     
  4. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #4
    I'd probably pick up an iPod if they sold one I like, but I can't stand the touch screen, so definitely not a 160gb iPod touch. An iPod Nano with a scroll wheel, modern tech, and some size to it - now that's a contender.
     
  5. AlabamaSlammer macrumors 6502

    AlabamaSlammer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Location:
    Alabama
    #5
    I would have to say no. It's so easy now just to stream music from the cloud for me it doesn't make since to pay for that amount of storage anymore

    Plus I still have a classic iPod that I use in my jeep
     
  6. Erik Chandra thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    #6
    Yes..you prefer iphone..the way i see it,you're not music fanatic are you?..;)

    ----------

    I have ipod classic, ipod touch and iphone..but i still waiting for bigger capacity of ipod touch..because i already tried to search a thousand songs from both ipod..the touch screen's way is better and easier..have you try it?..you will love to..:)
     
  7. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #7
    What nonsense. An iPhone plays music just as well as an iPod Touch, but it can do a lot more. Like making phone calls, and satellite navigation. There would be few people willing to pay a lot of money for a 160 GB iPod Touch, and not willing to spend a little bit more to get an iPhone.

    There's a market for the Classic. It's a very specialised device, and some people want that. There's no market for an iPod Touch with huge, expensive storage.
     
  8. Erik Chandra thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    #8
    You need internet connection or hot spot to stream music..what if when you're in no signal area?...plus, you have to pay each time you stream the song..it's not a good idea to listen to music..
    I also have ipod classic..but there are things i complain about the classic ipod..it has no bluetooth..so i couldn't choose a song to play to my multi speaker when i was dinner,at shower,relax on my bathtub,etc..and,it has no built in speaker..
     
  9. Erik Chandra thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    #9
    Yes..you mean,the problem is the price..i guess, apple will cost $400-500 for the 160 gb ipod touch..
    And i think,tim cook should just limit the capacity of iphone..just in 64gb..no more..then, i bet the ipod user and the music lover,will buy the 160gb ipod touch..CMIIW
     
  10. Lesser Evets macrumors 68040

    Lesser Evets

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    #10
    No. 160GB is too much for any of my iPod Touch needs. I will probably get a 64GB max, but I see the appeal of 128GB or higher for many people.
     
  11. AlexxRyzhkov macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    #11
    Personally, i think that with music streaming and the cloud being more popular, i would rather just get a 64Gb iPod. Or a 128gb if they ever come out with one.
     
  12. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #12
    I would want a lot more than 160GB; maybe 500GB?

    And add some quality amps, D/A converters; I'll pay $1000 for it.
     
  13. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #13

    Fanatic, no. Music lover, yes.

    I really don't see what my audiophile feelings has to do with choosing an iPhone over an iPod? I can deal with having access to only 50Gb on a day to day basis.
    These areas are practically non-existant in my country, and in any case, even if I was out of a covered area, I would still have the remaining music on my iPhone.
     
  14. Msail30bay macrumors regular

    Msail30bay

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2014
    Location:
    Penn., USA
    #14
    They can release a 256gb one :rolleyes: and still I would not come near it. I don't get it, why not get an iPhone, instead.
     
  15. Erik Chandra thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    #15
     
  16. Erik Chandra thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    #16
    Only 50gb?..i'm not sure...because you're audiophile lover (so am i),let's say all your music file is apple lossless audio file (ALAC)..average,one song's duration is 4 minutes..that is about 25mb..cmiiw..so,you can only fill 2000 songs?..that's absolutely not enough..
    Like i said,you only have 2000 songs..that's not enough..[/QUOTE]
     
  17. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #17
    Price. Add your data cost with the iPhone cost and tell me what you are paying over a 2 year period :rolleyes:
     
  18. Erik Chandra thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    #18
    Well, a phone is a phone..not a portable music player..when i enjoy my music library,i don't want to disturbed by incoming message and phone call..plus,i don't want to waste my cellphone battery life,just because of i hear music..come on,guys..you know what i'm talking about..let's don't screw the art of enjoying music..
     
  19. VI™ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Location:
    Shepherdsturd, WV
    #19
    After my Classic wore out and as long as I could use it with my radio in my car. My iPod spends 95% of it's life in my car connected to the head unit. I rarely listen to radio and all my music is on it. I also find it more convenient than having to constantly connect my phone to a radio.
     
  20. andycm81 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Location:
    Cheshire, United Kingdom
    #20
    A 160gb iPod touch would probably retail at somewhere north of £600! No way would I pay that. I have a 32gb iPod touch, 16gb iPhone 5s and 16gb iPad mini, these 3 devices are more than enough to keep my music collection on!
     
  21. Msail30bay macrumors regular

    Msail30bay

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2014
    Location:
    Penn., USA
    #21
    Can I JUST reply to you without quotes...…… Anyway, I hear what you are saying. I DO have iPods for different things I do and do live streaming when driving. I get how disturbing it can with incoming calls and messages while listening to music. However, I still dislike the iPod touch and find I can most things on the iPhone.

    ----------

    I don't know……$250 a month…… let me know.
     
  22. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #22
    That's my point. I'm still not sure why people say that the cost difference between an iPhone and Touch is not much. Just add together the cost of the iPhone (subsidized or not) along with two years of a cell plan. You can buy multiple Touch for what you pay for an iPhone over two years. Granted, the iPhone does more but, for myself and many other people, the cost is not worth it.

    I also wouldn't buy any device with more than 64GB.
     
  23. shyam09 macrumors 68000

    shyam09

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    #23
    I'd buy the 160GB nano. Having an iPod touch just feels weird in addition to having a beast smartphone that does everything. (I use the experience of having multiple smartphones that are no longer connected to a cellular network ... I just don't see the use of carrying more than one phone with me.)

    I rarely listen to music from my phone now. It's me, my trusty iPod Nano with a BT adapter, and my BT headphones :D
     
  24. Msail30bay macrumors regular

    Msail30bay

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2014
    Location:
    Penn., USA
    #24
    For me, it was going to be an iPhone….. and yes it certainly does more and I use it a lot AND I got it for looks, mainly everyone in my family has one and most of my friends, so it was a peer-pressure :D type of thing also.
     
  25. 617aircav Suspended

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    #25
    How is this a comparism? If you had and android phone the cost would still be the same as the iPhone. Comparing the ipod part of the iPhone to the iPod, cost is the same. You can't add the cost of the cellular part of the iPhone and compare it to a touch. Its apples and oranges.
     

Share This Page