iPod Okay, Lemme Get This Straight

CubaTBird

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Apr 18, 2004
2,135
0
So here I sit with my iPod 30 gb photo.. i look at apple.com... and it shows the 20gb color and a 60 gb color... i update my photo using the firmware update thing.... so basically my photo has all those features that the 20 and the 60 have right? and is 10 more gbs than the 20.... am i correct here?
 

BlizzardBomb

macrumors 68030
Jun 15, 2005
2,537
0
England
Pretty much, it was a really lazy update by Apple. They just phased out the 4G and gave the photo (the exact same one you could buy before but with 20GB and 60GB) the regular iPod title.
 

CubaTBird

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Apr 18, 2004
2,135
0
woot then! i don't feel obsolete.. and hey.. i got a 30 gb.. 10 more gbs than the current 20 and in between the 60.. lol gotta love rationalizing... :p
 

Chaszmyr

macrumors 601
Aug 9, 2002
4,265
76
CubaTBird said:
woot then! i don't feel obsolete.. and hey.. i got a 30 gb.. 10 more gbs than the current 20 and in between the 60.. lol gotta love rationalizing... :p
No rationalizing necessary. You have a perfectly fine piece of hardware, the only difference is the 20gb is a little thinner and $50 less than the 30gb was.
 

pdpfilms

macrumors 68020
Jun 29, 2004
2,385
0
Vermontana
No rationalizing necessary. You have a perfectly fine piece of hardware, the only difference is the 20gb is a little thinner and $50 less than the 30gb was.
I thought I read somewhere that the new 20gb photos are thicker than the old 20gb b&w ipods, and just as thick as the old 30gb photo. True?
 

law guy

macrumors 6502a
Jan 17, 2003
997
0
Western Massachusetts
pdpfilms said:
I thought I read somewhere that the new 20gb photos are thicker than the old 20gb b&w ipods, and just as thick as the old 30gb photo. True?
The still-for-sale U2 iPod measures: 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.57" and weighs 5.9 ounces - NOTE: now includes a color screen.
The new color 20 GB: 4.1 x 2.4 x0.63" and weighs 5.9 ounces
The new color 60 GB: 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.75 (same size as the 60 GB iPod Photo) and weighs 6.4 ounces (same weight as 60 GB iPod Photo).

It doesn't make sense to my why the U2 is able to be more narrow than the iPod white - both have 20 GB HDs with color screens.
 

jamdr

macrumors 6502a
Jul 20, 2003
660
0
Bay Area
law guy said:
The still-for-sale U2 iPod measures: 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.57" and weighs 5.9 ounces - NOTE: now includes a color screen.
The new color 20 GB: 4.1 x 2.4 x0.63" and weighs 5.9 ounces
The new color 60 GB: 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.75 (same size as the 60 GB iPod Photo) and weighs 6.4 ounces (same weight as 60 GB iPod Photo).

It doesn't make sense to my why the U2 is able to be more narrow than the iPod white - both have 20 GB HDs with color screens.
To add to this, the "old" 30GB iPod Photo was 2.4 x 4.1 x .63 inches, so the "new" 20GB color iPod is the same dimensions. This is really disappointing. Apple is actually still selling unopened 30GB models for $299, so I may just pick up one of those instead of the "new" 20GB model. Why didn't they just keep the 30GB disk in the iPod line, at least then they could justify the size.
 

Preacher85

macrumors member
Nov 21, 2004
57
0
Vermillion, SD
Dimensional Mistake perhaps?

Seeing as how the system admins for apple have been a little slow in getting their pages updated today, perhaps the dimensions for the 20GB are a mishap. They may have just forgotten to retype the .63" to a .57" when the changed the 30GB to 20GB.

I highly doubt Apple would increase the thickness of the 20 GB, especially since the U2 iPod is .57".

Unless...They could be using extra 30 GB casings? But they should have plenty of the 20 GB casings manufactured.

Oh well, I'll quit spewing my brain matter all over the place. Let's root for a typo. :eek:
 

BlizzardBomb

macrumors 68030
Jun 15, 2005
2,537
0
England
They still haven't even updated the bottom blurb yet in the UK store. It's still talking about 30GB here and 30GB there.
 

steve_hill4

macrumors 68000
May 15, 2005
1,856
0
NG9, England
They haven't updated the iPod pages on the Uk apple site yet either, only for the store. I can only assume that the .63 is just an oversight too.
 

furryrabidbunny

macrumors 6502
May 10, 2005
475
0
Mesa, AZ
I was wondering this... so are the "new" iPods the same size and weight as the 4g monochrome, or are they the size of the fat and heavy iPod photo?
 

JDOG_

macrumors 6502a
Nov 19, 2003
787
0
Oakland
Bittersweet day I guess.

Part of me is happy iPods have color screens and photo functionality across the line, but an even bigger part of me is disapointed that this happened instead of new 5Gs at the media event next week.

I was also hoping for an eventual price drop...$249 is so much more attractive than $299....
 

steve_hill4

macrumors 68000
May 15, 2005
1,856
0
NG9, England
Hey, the photo is not fat and heavy, especially the 30GB, it was only a mm or two thicker than the 20GB and not much weight difference. But in response, I can only guess at the same size and weight as the 4G, when they update the tech specs that is.
 

steve_hill4

macrumors 68000
May 15, 2005
1,856
0
NG9, England
JDOG_ said:
Bittersweet day I guess.

Part of me is happy iPods have color screens and photo functionality across the line, but an even bigger part of me is disapointed that this happened instead of new 5Gs at the media event next week.

I was also hoping for an eventual price drop...$249 is so much more attractive than $299....
Well we all want lower prices, but that doesn't happen every day. The next range will see the minis switch to colour screens too, but will that show a price increase, stay the same, or increase if we assume the same capacities I wonder. :confused: