*Official* iPod thread - all iPod discussion in here

[Destrukticor]

iphone price drop $399 8gb
yowsers

[Kotatsu Neko]

I have 80gb of music. I don't need to carry it all but the technology exists so why not? Dropping down to 16gb would be pretty unpleasant, - even my original iPod years back had 20gb of storage and back then I was happy with 128k encoding. Now I use 320k.

[Champloo]

No use at all, I may as well stick with my current iPod.

All I wanted was the iPhone minus the phone, and with the same or greater storage than my current iPod. What on earth is the point of making this 'ultimate iPod' and then crippling it with a comedy amount of storage? Defies belief.

Doesn't really defy belief. The average person isn't concerned with having much more space - I mean the nano is the big iPod seller after all, because it looks fancy and its small and flash based.

Personally i'm very happy to see the 160gb model, but i'll wait and see if RWA can iMod it, if not its a 80gb 5.5gen for me.

[IanE]

Well.. the iPhone is only 4gb or 8gb isn't it? So the touch has twice as much... Still take your point though that you'd expect a bit more than that.

It has all the bits the iPhone doesn't aside from the camera and phone part, right? 16GB is this highest it feasibly goes (relative to cost) at the moment.

[Kotatsu Neko]

It has all the bits the iPhone doesn't aside from the camera and phone part, right? 16GB is this highest it feasibly goes (relative to cost) at the moment.

Nonsense. Why not just stick an HD in there?

[IanE]

You're completely missing the point of this. Put a 'proper' HD in there and it becomes twice the size, comparing it to the iPhone would be a joke, this is the iPhone without the phone, for those that want a high-end piece of technology. 8GB and 16GB is more than enough, if you want something different on there, put it on there, if it gets full, replace stuff you don't use, I haven't filled my 4GB Nano that I use, nor have I filled my 80GB iPod, but I've popped all three Nanos and the 80GB I own onto eBay and will be getting the iPod touch because it's a lovely looking piece of kit, it's small and I love technology.

Also, using your reasoning, why bother with touch when the original touch wheel works perfectly fine? Progression. You want a big HD? Get the iPod Classic, don't bring everyone else down with you.

[Kotatsu Neko]

I'm really not understanding your reasoning now.

I want an iPod with a large widescreen display for watching movies on when on the move. I want wi-fi for web browsing. And I want enough storage to store music, movies, podcasts, and audiobooks.

The new iPod Touch does all of that except have enough storage. Since when has technology gone backwards like this? Why go from a basic player with 160gb of storage, to a far more advanced device with a paltry 16gb? It makes no sense at all. This is supposed to be the ultimate iPod, but how can it possibly be when a handful of movies will fit up it's storage?

[IanE]

You want an iPod with a large display for video? Get the Classic or Touch. You want wi-fi and web-browsing but don't care for size? Get the Nokia 770 or something similar then.

What is 'enough' storage? It stores hours and hours of music and video and it's tiny. This is not a step back in technology, it's the biggest flash device they've sold, it's smaller, people don't want bigger, if they want bigger capacity, they get the classic. If they want the snazzy device, coverged and tiny, get the iPod touch. Smaller is an improvement in technology, the tech inside the touch is newer than that in the Classic, why go back to HD storage when flash is the future? 32GB flash is not commercially viable in a product like this right now, that is my reasoning. If you don't understand then you're lost.

"a handful of movies will fit up it's storage"

Don't make stuff up to fit your argument, movies on DivX will come in at around 700MB for full-screen quality, half of that for decent iPod quality, 350MB. That's over 40 films, about 80 hours of video - more than the battery will last by far (something like 10 times longer than the battery), then you can simply replace the movies/episodes you've seen.

People 'coped' with 8GB of storage on Nanos and they still will, people will 'cope' with 16GB on such a hi-tech device now, because it's more than enough space for the audience it's aimed at. You are not limited by the space on there either, plug it in and put some different files on when you're done with them.

[Richard.John]

I find the nano bashing amusing. It's really just a classic in miniature so unless that is a design disaster then I am not sure why the net is full of whingers.

On the subject of the touch, It has been suggested that Apple should've done a thick and thin. One with 16GB of flash and a thicker HDD model.
That would please everyone.

[Kotatsu Neko]

You want an iPod with a large display for video? Get the Classic or Touch. You want wi-fi and web-browsing but don't care for size? Get the Nokia 770 or something similar then.

What is 'enough' storage? It stores hours and hours of music and video and it's tiny. This is not a step back in technology, it's the biggest flash device they've sold, it's smaller, people don't want bigger, if they want bigger capacity, they get the classic. If they want the snazzy device, coverged and tiny, get the iPod touch. Smaller is an improvement in technology, the tech inside the touch is newer than that in the Classic, why go back to HD storage when flash is the future? 32GB flash is not commercially viable in a product like this right now, that is my reasoning. If you don't understand then you're lost.

"a handful of movies will fit up it's storage"

Don't make stuff up to fit your argument, movies on DivX will come in at around 700MB for full-screen quality, half of that for decent iPod quality, 350MB. That's over 40 films, about 80 hours of video - more than the battery will last by far (something like 10 times longer than the battery), then you can simply replace the movies/episodes you've seen.

People 'coped' with 8GB of storage on Nanos and they still will, people will 'cope' with 16GB on such a hi-tech device now, because it's more than enough space for the audience it's aimed at. You are not limited by the space on there either, plug it in and put some different files on when you're done with them.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? I have 60gb or music. Add to that around 2gb of podcasts. 2gb of audiobooks. When I go away I usually encode a bunch of movies which can easily come out at 10gb or more. I like choice, I like to carry my music library with me, which funnily enough is how Steve sold iPods a few years back.

iPod touch has so little storage that is no longer possible, so you are saying that's fine because I don't want wi-fi and web browsing and a big, wide screen to watch movies on. Actually I do want all of that, and my whole music library.

Understand now?

[Dogg Thang]

It does seem to make little sense. The Touch should have been the next generation of iPod. For that to happen, it needed at the very least 80GB of storage. 16GB is nuts. A giant step backwards. Hence the need to keep a 'classic', which really should have been dropped this generation if things were moving forward.

[ChrisF]

I'm GLAD there is no HD in the iPod touch. My first ipod failed due to hard drive failure so I stick to solid state now. Hard drives aren't exactly designed to be moved about as much as they are in ipods...

[dc-arena]

Nice iPod, shame about the incredibly small amount of storage.

[Champloo]

Why is this so hard for you to understand? I have 60gb or music. Add to that around 2gb of podcasts. 2gb of audiobooks. When I go away I usually encode a bunch of movies which can easily come out at 10gb or more. I like choice, I like to carry my music library with me, which funnily enough is how Steve sold iPods a few years back.

iPod touch has so little storage that is no longer possible, so you are saying that's fine because I don't want wi-fi and web browsing and a big, wide screen to watch movies on. Actually I do want all of that, and my whole music library.

Understand now?

If you wanted all of that, it'd have to be bigger in size then it is, as a result losing much of its esthetic appeal for most people, not to mention the benefits of being flash based. Don't get me wrong, i'd like the same as you've listed really, well actually i'm concerned almost entirely with the music so a 160gb classic could be perfect for me.

Put it this way, if Apple had put a 60gb HDD in there, it'd keep you and some others happy, but you'd have far more people complaining that it wasn't 16 or 32gb flash.

What Apple can be criticised for is not allowing you to use memory cards (it seems) which would have kept some people happy.

[Kotatsu Neko]

Well they could have added an SD card slot, or just made a 32gb flash version with an inflated price tag.

16gb is just too small, especially when you're going to be losing a chunk of that anyway to the usual formatting and OS requirements.