More Storage for iPod Touch?

Discussion in 'iPod touch' started by pat5507, Nov 23, 2007.

  1. pat5507 macrumors newbie

    Jan 9, 2007
    Im sure this has been posted a lot but i was wondering if there are any rumors regarding more storage for the iPod Touch. I am extremely interested in buying it but not with only 16 GB. I will wait till it has around 160GB. Thanks for the help
  2. derryquinn macrumors 6502


    Sep 29, 2007
    HAHAHA It won't be getting 160gb anytime soon n00b
  3. davidjearly macrumors 68020


    Sep 21, 2006
    Glasgow, Scotland

    The search function is your friend. Anyway, the reason the iPod touch has limited memory is because it uses flash memory chips. These are much more expensive than hard disk drives like the 80GB & 160GB iPods currently have.

    In addition, if Apple were to use hard disk drives in the iPod touch, the devices would be larger (against Apple's design philosophy) and also the user interface would be very clunky, especially Coverflow.

    Don't expect to see that size of iPod touch anytime soon. If flash memory prices don't rise next year, we'll likely see a 32GB version at some point, but not for quite a while yet.

    Unnecessary, and unhelpful.

  4. MacVDS macrumors regular

    Nov 14, 2007
    Philomath Oregeon
    My opinion is Apple shouldn't have marketed the iPod Touch as as a new iPod. It's really a hand held wifi unit for surfing the web, with a really cool interface and touch screen. I think they should have loaded it with the same apps as iPhone (ie. mail app, stocks, and weather) and called it the iFi Touch (or something more clever). The fact that it does come with a YouTube player, plays music with coverflow, and movies is an added bonus. It's not a hard drive iPod substitute. I have a 60gig iPod for music on the go. To classify it as an iPod is kinda like calling the iPhone the iPod Phone, which really isn't an iPod that has a phone built in, from a feature priority. Thus the skimpy memory is not... or shouldn't be the biggest concern as much as keeping the size thin and battery life high. You really don't spend a lot of time staring at an iPod screen normally, you just start the music and bundle the thing up for hours and hours. The iPod Touch is designed with a nice large screen for hours of web browsing and watching a few movies or TV shows that's much easier on the eyes in a really light, thin package.
  5. aethelbert macrumors 601

    Jun 1, 2007
    Chicago, IL, USA
    Yes, let's be mature about this.

    Anyway, the device is likely to stay with flash memory. Even if it doubles (as flash does) yearly, 128GB is still a long way off.
  6. pat5507 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Jan 9, 2007
  7. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601


    Feb 10, 2004
    They should have made it a full PDA and called it the iNewton or whatever. It's actually too bad they made the iPhone, otherwise they very well might have made a PDA with all the touch features plus better/more software, the camera and BT from the iPhone and made it able to tether to a cell phone for internet connectivity.

    That would have been 100x better than the iPhone or touch. Ah well.
  8. ScottFitz macrumors 6502a

    Nov 3, 2007
    Apple has been making mention lately of getting away from hard drive based ipods. I'd imagine as flash mem prices keep coming down, we'll see larger and larger ipod touch devices. But I've had an 8gb 2nd gen nano for a while. I travel a lot on business so it's been my main airplane entertainment (100,000+ flown miles each year). Invariably, I listen to the same 20 or so favorite cd's all the time. I have all 8gb full, but only listen to about 1-2 gb worth. So, for me a 16gb touch should allow me some video content, some audio content and probably room left over. I also like the idea of varying it up from trip to trip. I can always dump stuff onto my laptop (that I'm forced to carry), but pulling the laptop out on every flight gets tedious. Someone leans back and crashes into the screen, my belly gets in the way, blah blah blah.

Share This Page