Will the next full iPod (iPod touch) use a Hard Drive, or flash based memory?

Discussion in 'iPod touch' started by Shorties, Aug 24, 2007.

  1. Shorties macrumors 6502a

    Jul 22, 2007
    Southern California
    The only reason I did not get a 80GB iPod 3 weeks ago with the rebate when I bought my Macbook Pro (I got the Nano instead and sold it to a friend) was because I wanted something bigger (I have over 100GBs of legally obtained music and movies) and I kept hearing rumors of a new iPod. But I keep hearing things about more flash memory, which drives me crazy. I don't care about battery life as much as I do about space, and the limited flash space was the main reason I did not get an iPhone. So basically I am asking what do you think? What are the rumors pointing to? If the iPod "Touch" turns out to be flash based I am going to go to my local store and try to find an 80GB 5.5 Gen to buy.
  2. zap2 macrumors 604


    Mar 8, 2005
    Washington D.C
    Well with rumors 4 models, I'm expecting a

    shuffle replacement-smaller, maybe more memory, still no screen etc
    nano replacment....we've all seen the pics, w/ video, fatter and shotter.
    iPod 6G-Hard drive based, click wheel , more storage.
    iPod touch-iPhone with out the phone.
  3. storage macrumors 6502

    Jun 4, 2005
    I hope for both. 80gb and 120/160gb with 512/1024mb flash memory. General storage on the HDD, most played from your iTunes library or whatever items you want on the flash memory to conserve battery life.

    Might take up some extra (physical) space, though.
  4. rockthecasbah macrumors 68020


    Apr 12, 2005
    Moorestown, NJ
    maybe both, definitely hard drive based. Flash is still too limited a capacity for a media device that supports video (i think it taps out at 32GB?) ... Yet i'm sure those components are quite expensive so who knows if we'll even see Flash drives for full size iPods...

    You can safely rest assured that you'll get a higher capacity iPod like you want, do not run out and buy a 5th gen now :)
  5. Loge macrumors 68030


    Jun 24, 2004
    There is no way Apple is going to risk losing many thousands of customers by discontinuing the HDD based iPod, until there is an alternative that offers similar storage.

    Recent developments such as offering higher bit rate songs from iTMS and efforts to expand the range of video offerings, and internationally, all point to hardware with more storage not less.
  6. robPOD macrumors 6502

    Jun 19, 2006
    32gb flash memory is so expensive it would be pointless putting it into an iPod.
  7. madmaxmedia macrumors 68030

    Dec 17, 2003
    Los Angeles, CA
    I'm pretty sure they'll still have 2 HD players. The only question is what sizes- hopefully 60GB and 120GB? I would settle for 30GB and 100GB though.
  8. storage macrumors 6502

    Jun 4, 2005
    My guess is that they'll drop the 30gb, and go either 60 or 80gb on the "low end".
  9. homeboy macrumors 6502

    Aug 23, 2007
  10. ds252 macrumors regular

    Aug 6, 2007
    It better be HDD or all this waiting was for not, i know i won't use 80 GB so waiting for a 120 or something along those lines was pointless but i just couldn't live with 16GB
  11. SactoGuy18 macrumors 68030


    Sep 11, 2006
    Sacramento, CA USA
    The new full-screen iPod video (6G) will be hard drive based. Reason is simple: video takes up a LOT of storage space even with H.264 compression, and the only way to accommodate multiple movies on the new iPod is to put it on a hard drive.
  12. aswitcher macrumors 603


    Oct 8, 2003
    Canberra OZ
    Shuffle - I wonder if the shuffle might get a small screen.

    Nano - Yeah, nano, bigger flash memory, bigger better screen.

    iPod 6G - Yeah HDD maybe up to 160GB. And yeah, maybe not touch but wheel a) thats what the rumours are saying; b) touchscreen may not work well with HDD tech

    Pod Touch - Flash memory maybe 8 and 16 GB, so bigger than iPhone but not any bigger because of cost
  13. homeboy macrumors 6502

    Aug 23, 2007
    Exactly! The whole point with a big screen is to watch videos on and they take a whole lot of space. 8-16GB is too little to accommodate both video and a whole lot of music. Therefore it is really logical for the iPod touch to feature a HDD and become apple first proper PMP.
  14. aethelbert macrumors 601

    Jun 1, 2007
    Chicago, IL, USA
  15. iTim314 macrumors 6502

    Jun 5, 2005

    Actually, they top out at 256Gb. :) Irrelevant, I know, but I figured I'd share that.

    But I completely agree with you in the aspect that putting Flash memory into a video iPod like that is 100% pointless.
  16. Gen3tix macrumors newbie

    Aug 3, 2007
    Yea, making the full sized iPod flash-based just wouldn't really make much sense. Considering flash is pretty expensive, and comes in smaller capacities, Apple won't make a full switch to flash memory with this refresh. Perhaps in the future? Maybe.

    I'm going to say maybe 100 or 120gb hdd's in the next full sized iPod.
  17. psychofreak Retired


    May 16, 2006
    Not at iPod sizes, its much less than 256GB at 1.8" :)
  18. coryetzkorn macrumors regular


    Jul 23, 2007
    I don't get why 32Gb Flash is so expensive. I can understand why a 32Gb SD card would cost a fortune, but why would this be the same case with the full-size iPod? Can't you just daisy-chain a bunch of 4Gb cards in the same space an HDD would fit into?

    Can someone clarify this? Thanks.:apple:
  19. Dagless macrumors Core


    Jan 18, 2005
    Fighting to stay in the EU
  20. zflauaus macrumors 65816

    Nov 19, 2004
    Well, using your knowledge, let's take an iPod nano for instance. It's about $90 to make the entire thing, so let's say that $40 is the 4GB chip. 40 x 8 = $320. You also must factor in the cost of other components, so let's just say $320 + 120 = $440. Add a 40% markup carried over from the nano = $616. So it's just not beneficial to Apple or the consumers. Plus also you may have to have flash controllers for every card, and the size of it (considering the 2GB nano had two individual 1GB chips) wouldn't be plausible.

Share This Page