iPod touch Why no iPod touch w/ HD...my thoughts

squeeks

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jun 19, 2007
3,389
14
Florida
first, size, it woulda been a lot bigger because of the screen, second, battery issues, the battery is most likly bigger to be able to power that drive, so it would have been bigger yet, last is price, the drives are expensive, plus all of the new touch technology...it woulda been 499-599, so as much as i woulda liked to have had an ipod ultimate...i can understand why apple didnt go that direction...other thoughts?
 

monke

macrumors 65816
May 30, 2005
1,439
2
My Thoughts

Size.
To add an HD, it would have taken more space and more battery life just like squeeks said. They also can't add a massive HD or nobody would buy the iPod Classic. They also can't add more because it would take over the iPhone.

Price.
At around $499/599 it wouldn't target enough people. Sure it would be great to have 160GB inside a touch screen iPod, but how can you market the other products? Of course the Classic is a lot cheaper, but with the holiday season coming up too, they wanted more ideas for people. If there are 4 different iPod models, at all different prices, it gives more ideas to people.

Just my cents.
 

The new member

macrumors member
Jan 22, 2007
64
0
An iPod Touch with HD will come for sure. In 1 or 2 years when the iPod Classic's UI will become too much obsolete.
 

timswim78

macrumors 6502a
Feb 8, 2006
697
0
Baltimore, MD
first, size, it woulda been a lot bigger because of the screen, second, battery issues, the battery is most likly bigger to be able to power that drive, so it would have been bigger yet, last is price, the drives are expensive, plus all of the new touch technology...it woulda been 499-599, so as much as i woulda liked to have had an ipod ultimate...i can understand why apple didnt go that direction...other thoughts?
1. I understand that drives are larger in volume that flash memory, but what does the screen have to do with it?
2. Flash memory uses plenty of battery life as well. There are some flash based laptops, and their battery life is good, but not great.
3. If you think that the price of drives is high, check out the price of flash memory.
 

squeeks

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jun 19, 2007
3,389
14
Florida
that stupid touch screen has to take up a lot of space conpared to the tiny LCD in the classic
 

aristobrat

macrumors G5
Oct 14, 2005
12,248
1,319
I think Apple probably saved a lot of design money by making the iPod touch as close internally to the iPhone as possible.

By overlapping components whenever possible between the two, seems to me that gives them more flexibility on the assembly line as well as in the support area.
 

flying dog

macrumors newbie
Sep 5, 2007
27
0
...when the iPod Classic's UI will become too much obsolete.
I think that came a year ago. The classic model I see as being an item to only help bridge the gap until flash storage cost comes down; to me it's not even a 6th generation (that would be the touch model) but something between that and the 5.5th.

As far as exactly why a hard drive wasn't available in the touch model, I think that's part of the strategy to move to flash storage. As much as I would rather purchase an 80GB touch model than anything else that came out today, if versions with hard drives were available at similar price points to flash models with a smaller capacity the general public I feel would go towards the larger storage capacity over the reliability of flash. By putting the big capacity with the "Classic" model they seem to be betting (rightly so) that the majority of the buying public will go towards what looks and feels more modern. The "Classic" model feels obsolete out of the box in comparison. Even the name "Classic" coming from a technology company should tell you which direction they want the market to move towards, and that's flash storage. Last time they threw out the Classic name it was for OS9 backwards compatibility.
 

gkarris

macrumors G3
Dec 31, 2004
8,071
736
"My Own Private Idaho”
Rise up, old Thread!

So, now with the App Store out, and people putting tons and tons of stuff on iPods, think they will end-of-life the Classic and replace it with a hard drive based Touch in Sept.?

My thoughts (if they EOL the Classic):

16 Gig, $249
32 Gig, $349
80 Gig HD, $349
160 Gig HD, $449

I mentioned in another thread maybe a 64 Gig solid-state Touch ($499) but that may be a bit agressive as far as flash memory pricing in the fall.
 

timbo-baggins

macrumors newbie
Jul 12, 2008
14
0
An iPod Touch with HD will come for sure. In 1 or 2 years when the iPod Classic's UI will become too much obsolete.
I disagree. The iPod Touch line will be refreshed with larger capacity SSD drives, not spinning disks. The price for these is falling all the time and I would expect that the next refresh will see a 64GB SSD in place, and larger capacity in the future. Spinning disks are too bulky and power-hungry and that coupled with the power requirements of a larger screen and wifi etc means that they won't make it into the Touch line.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

Tim
 

gkarris

macrumors G3
Dec 31, 2004
8,071
736
"My Own Private Idaho”
^^^

Don't you think, though, it could be a possiblity if they decide to discontinue the classic, and start pushing only touchscreen iPods for downloading Apps?

I can't imagine a 128 Gig iPod Touch with SSD at the prices right now, especially if you want all your music and videos with you.
 

Muncher

macrumors 65816
Apr 19, 2007
1,465
0
California
Accelerometer based apps wouldn't be a good idea with a hard drive
Good point.

I don't think they'll ever put an HDD in the touch/iphone, that technology just isn't suited for those products.

The first time I read this thread, I thought you guys were talking about HD screens, now that would be amazing! :D
 

gear71428

macrumors member
Sep 11, 2007
61
0
With wifi you only need enough memory to hold your apps and enough music or vids to get you from one hot spot to another; where you can download different music and vids.

Stop viewing it as a traditional ipod where you try to bring all your music and vids with you at all times to be able to enjoy what you are suddenly in a mood for; try to view it as a device that will allow you to access your (remotely stored) library to get what you want when you want it.

Past portable media players were about memory size. These new portable media players are about access; memory size is fairly irrelevant.
 

myuserid08

macrumors 6502
Mar 15, 2008
346
3
If you wanted a hard drive in the touch you would have to double the thickness at least, which apple isn't going to do.
Eventually manufacturers will use SSD as standard in laptops, desktops etc, they can take more abuse and will last longer than the current mechanical drives.
So it seems fairly pointless Apple going back to the old unreliable drives which they are obviously trying to get away from.
 

MacinJosh

macrumors 6502a
Jan 29, 2006
676
55
Finland
I wouldn't have bought a Touch if it had a HD. HDs are last millenium's tech. They should stop developing them and concentrate on flash. I'm sure that will happen some day. I hate the idea of a tiny disk spinning at thousands of rounds per minute with a head hovering over the disk at nanometers susceptible to damage at the slightest knock. No thanks. I've had too much bad experience with HDs. Flash FTW!
 

ryan.stewie

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2008
135
0
Australia
Also, isn't kind of obvious that a Hard Drive inside an iPod touch would cause terrible lag when tapping applications and settings and would cause coverflow to be slow. The Classic is slow enough to respond when pressing buttons, imagine how slow it would be on a touch screen. Hard Drives are EXTREMELY slower than flash memory.