An interesting concept - the merging of the two "big daddies" of the iPod line - the iPod classic and the iPod touch.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod touch Would you be for or against a hard drive-based iPod touch?
- Thread starter darijoe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It wouldn't work... first the OS can't run on something as slow as an iPod hard disk, second it would take too much power.
never ever ever
i like the thinness of the ipod. if the ipod touch were to be hard drive based then we'll be seeing broken ipod touches all over the place for those who would want to play games using the accelerometer.
i like the thinness of the ipod. if the ipod touch were to be hard drive based then we'll be seeing broken ipod touches all over the place for those who would want to play games using the accelerometer.
Wait a minute...aren't the HDDs used in the classic 4200rpm? And the MBA runs on a 4200rpm HDD. How are the HDDs too slow?
haha the classic's is downclocked to more like 3000rpm, and the macbook air has a 1.6ghz processor with 2GB of RAM. The classic doesn't have to do all the fancy web browsing, animations, or dynamic imaging that the iPod touch has to do. Think of it logically!
As much as a bigger-capacity Touch would be great, my Nano has firmly convinced me that flash memory is the best and the future. I'd prefer to see cheaper, higher capacity flash memory developed instead. Not having to worry about skipping is one of its many benefits.
I doubt they will drop the Classic. SSD price by next year would still be quite a bit higher than HD. Classic is still useful for many people. Not everyone wants a multimedia player, a lot of people just want a music player. iPod Classic/nano are still better music player than iPod touch because of the clickwheel (tactile response). For people who doesn't need the extra features of the iPod touch but need a lot of space, or people who are on a budget, the iPod Classic is still an excellent choice.
id like it only if they kept the flash based touch and just added a hard drive based touch to the touch line
no it wont happen on the ipod touch, first heavy and would be thick meaning less portable. and secondly people want to be running or jogging with there ipod, would you go jogging or in the gym with your ipod touch if it was a hdd i know i wouldn't. maybe SSD in the future but HDD a big NO NO for me
I'll never buy a hard disk anything ever again aside from those used in my floor model computer.
Every HD iPod I had has died from HD breakdown within 2 years. Every iPod I owned with SSD tech is still going strong after years. They might MAKE HD iPods now and in the future, but I would NEVER buy one again. There are no decent pluses, and one giant minus.
Every HD iPod I had has died from HD breakdown within 2 years. Every iPod I owned with SSD tech is still going strong after years. They might MAKE HD iPods now and in the future, but I would NEVER buy one again. There are no decent pluses, and one giant minus.
won't happen because it'd be ugly. the way ssd is going, i expect the next touch to have over 100gb of space. it prolly won't, but it should. eventually the classic will be gone, and it will just be the touch with mega space all SSD
back in the early days of the touch, I'd have said "go for it" with such vigour. But that was in the dark days, the days before games, before the app store. Now to add a spinning HDD to a device whose main input methods are touch and more importantly for this argument, changes in orientation (i.e. tilt). A spinning HDD in such a device would create a gyroscope effect, and tilting / swivelling the touch would do nasty things to the platter. Thats why in my opinion the touch will never have a HDD. for the record, I was REALY disapointed when SJ announced the first iPod touch and that it was only a wittle wee flash chip inside it.
Generally speaking, this is a bad idea.
1) it's a step backwards in technology. an unnecessary one, at that.
2) Flash prices are fated to drop, and capacity is fated to increase. That is how technology works, and it's basically a matter of time before the two coincide to create the amount of space desirable in the iPod Touch (for me, it's anything over 64GB)
3) Flash-based storage is much faster than hdd; the OS, the apps, everything would run slower
4) Flash-based storage is much more battery efficient. Seeking for info on hdds not only takes more time, but more energy. Battery life would decrease.
5) The design of the iPod Touch would have to be completely redone... to be considerably thicker. It's not as though the iPod Classic on its own is a really chubby baby, but compared to the Touch, it's clearly noticeable.
1) it's a step backwards in technology. an unnecessary one, at that.
2) Flash prices are fated to drop, and capacity is fated to increase. That is how technology works, and it's basically a matter of time before the two coincide to create the amount of space desirable in the iPod Touch (for me, it's anything over 64GB)
3) Flash-based storage is much faster than hdd; the OS, the apps, everything would run slower
4) Flash-based storage is much more battery efficient. Seeking for info on hdds not only takes more time, but more energy. Battery life would decrease.
5) The design of the iPod Touch would have to be completely redone... to be considerably thicker. It's not as though the iPod Classic on its own is a really chubby baby, but compared to the Touch, it's clearly noticeable.