digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

IPod's Next Killer App? Double Your Storage With ShrinkMyTunes

wired.com — On Wednesday at 10:42 a.m., exactly two seconds after Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced a heap of new iPods, music geeks everywhere started reworking their finances to make room for the new iPod Touch. But the new players also present a barrier that's tough for a true music lover to hurdle: storage space.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • metapop, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19sounds great- i moved from a 60GB ipod to an 8GB iphone, and am creating smart playlists trying to cycle songs in and out of it after i listen to them or skip them once... it works well, but i'd love to have more of my music on there. p.s. release a mac version.
    • bendedavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6True, smart playlists are great. I have a few to ensure all my newest and most listened to music makes it on my ipod.
    • CDRaff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah I am moving from a 30 to the 16. Now I just need to Rate, add genres and add album art to all my music... I am going to be busy this month.
    • Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I am not willing to do that... ill hold out for a HD based ipod touch
    • Tyr7BE, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6So just pop in an 8 gig uSD card and double your storage.

      Oh wait...
  • THUMPerRTE, on 10/10/2007, -22/+46160GB iPod Classic + ShrinkMyTunes = >320GB...holy *****
    • grivad, on 10/10/2007, -1/+44Eh, 160GB iPod Classic + ShrinkMyTunes = 160GB iPod Classic...with smaller files.
  • MuzakaEklekta, on 10/10/2007, -4/+194Awesome. I've never heard of audio compression before.
    • _skin_, on 10/10/2007, -44/+3I am assuming you are joking.
      • mrfreeziexp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+40I am assuming you are joking.
        • MindStalker, on 10/10/2007, -15/+0So is what your saying is that with compression we could compress that down to
          _Skin_ mrfreezixp I am assuming you are joking
          Which would further compress to W#%DH@
          Is that what your trying to say?
      • Jones82, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10_skin_, If you really assumed he was joking you wouldn't of posted that
        • jenel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11wouldn't HAVE
        • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Oh my, poor grammar. Oh HOW will I live my life without correcting others?!
      • vypergts, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1GIGO's the word when it comes to A/V.
    • 89vision, on 10/10/2007, -0/+114They have the internet on computers now.
      • skatastrophy, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7I downloaded the interweb just last night. I can't wait to install it!
        • archd3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0sarcasm + paradox ( + lame joke) = not funny
        • BootsElectric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5commenting on "sarcasm + paradox ( + lame joke) = not funny =/= insightful either.

          Yes, I realize the ironing.
    • quomen, on 10/10/2007, -3/+42"A new software release from London-based Z Group claims to have the answer. Available now, the $40 Windows-only ShrinkMyTunes can squeeze MP3s to about half their original size with only the slightest loss in sound quality."
      Slightest loss in sound quality? Mp3 is bad enough, to take even a slight loss is a NOTHX for me. As much as I want the flash and bling i'm getting the 160gb classic. A lot of you guys are making sorry excuses for the miserable 16gb memory and are saying "SMART PLAYLIST SMART PLAYLIST". Screw it, I want my WHOLE playlist.
      • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The 160gb classic isn't even a temptation for me. Not a single computer I own comes close to that capacity. Given the media library has to exist simultaneously on the host computer, I'd need hard drive upgrades all around [my home network] before I could think about it.

        I suppose I could use it to store rips of every data CD I own. Maybe rip a good number of my DVDs, and use the iPod in data mode to play video straight from it through the computer, so that way I wouldn't need to keep another copy in my iTunes library. Possibly have full installations of various operating systems on the iPod.

        Okay, crap, now its a temptation. :-)
      • psiphre, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0you can fit your entire playlist on 160gb? what a slacker
    • noexistence, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1lol...I love the irony of complaining about wanting quality audio files yet saying you are buying an iPod classic to accommodate that. Even with the best headphones and files, the iPod is the bottle neck.

      If quality is #1 for you get a Cowon player.
      • screaminmartin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4If quality is number 1, go to a live concert.
    • scrollop, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1It's true. Have a look at the Cowon Q5, to be released soon http://iaudiophile.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15329 40GB / 60GB , 5 inch screen, plays MPEG 1/2/2.5 Layer 3, WMA(ASF), Ogg Vorbis, Wave, FLAC, APE/MPC, AC3, DivX, XviD, MPEG4, WMV 7/8/9, OGM
  • axisofphilippe, on 10/10/2007, -5/+49Technically this would be iPod's FIRST killer app.
    • MonsterChaOS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+45Technically the app has jack ***** to do with iPods. Hell, its only windows software and would work with any mp3 player.
    • ThatsUnpossible, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The iPod itself is the first killer app
  • Darrelc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+146Double your storage, Halve your quality.
    • saleem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19to be fair the algorithm they glided over in the article does not just halve your bitrate. so its not half quality, it should be only a 'slight loss'
      • keithmcbride, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I don't think that is true. Since you could basically encode any sound at infinitely high bitrate, your sound does not continually double every time your bitrate doubles.

        That is the point of compression, that at some point, the amount of compression is negligible to your ears. Taking what is a negligible compression, and compressing it further may in fact make it sound significantly worse.

        Recording at 90kbps as opposed to 192kbps is not "twice as good," there is really no way of describing the quality of the sound, just the amount of data used
    • saleem, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2to be fair the algorithm they glided over in the article does not just halve your bitrate. so its not half quality, it should be only a 'slight loss'
    • wiifm69, on 10/10/2007, -1/+30If you wanted your awesome CD collection encoded in 68 kbps VBR then this is the program for you.
    • tidu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Slightly off-topic, does anyone know the highest quality the iPod earbuds can achieve? Because if at their best they sound like xKbps, this might not be a bad idea unless you've got a $300 pair of headphones.

      Or maybe I'm completely off base...
      • frankietears, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Bit rate and frequency response are two different things.
        • espire, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1The specs you read on the headphones' box are not the way to decide how good they are. There is far more to it than frequency response when it comes to headphones.
        • danielwsmithee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Though sample rate does affect frequency response. Bit rate is just the amount of compression.
        • IceColdFever, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3yeah, but a lower bitrate will remove the high and low frequencies from the file. So while there isn't a direct number you can compare, there are some things in common.
      • espire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Regardless, the iPod's included earbuds are so bad compared to what you can get for $20 (that's right, half of what Apple charges for them) that even 128kbps sounds exponentially better when using these headphones.
        However, 128kbps is generally the lowest you can go without noticing too much quality lacking, and moving up to even 192 does amazing things, especially at the lower end.
    • oneiroi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I haven't listened.
      But I wonder if anyone who's saying the quality is bad has actually listened to the samples?
      • zetamilk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Maybe it's just me, but they sounded like they were being played at a faster speed. Kind of like the chipmunks.
    • timro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Samples 1 and 2 made me want to buy the program, but number 3 just made me want to steer clear of it.
  • salpairodice, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4It'd be better if apple allowed for some kind of disc compression, i.e. NTFS compression, to free up a little space.
    • kent1146, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Compression means more processing power required, more powerful processor required, more battery life consumed. It's not the cure-all that you think.
      • danielwsmithee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Also what is the point of having a disc level compression when you the audio files are already compressed. If you want more compression just increase the compression on the individual files by decreasing their bit-rate like this program does.
    • lukifer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3MP3s are already losslessly compressed in addition to the lossy audio compression, so the returns would be pretty meager. Try to zip up some MP3s to see what I mean.
      • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't believe you are completely correct. The audio file data in the MP3, M4A, etc., are written in such a way that applying additional compression techniques result in little-to-no additional compression. This doesn't mean the files were losslessly compressed, just that the file data is such that compression is impossible.

        Lossless compression is simply a term that describes taking a pristine (non-compressed) audio sample, and applying a compression algorithm that is completely reversible, so the quality of the extracted file is identical to the original. Lossless compression is much like other compression schemes, like zip and rar, only that the lossless algorithms are designed for on-the-fly decompression of audio & video.

        Since the MP3, M4A, etc., file has been compressed in a lossy fashion--losing some portion of quality for the sake of smaller file size--any association with lossless compression is inappropriate and confusing.
  • siralphred, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22if apple is going to make only provide 8G and 16G of space they should include and sd expansion slot for those with 30G and 60G ipods to migrate ...i mean come on apple!
    • Protoss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9SD cards are only what, 4 gigs max? So 12 and 20 gigs respectively? Not that much more.
      • Speed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8But as SD cards increase in storage, it can increase by that much.
      • unclemeat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Think 32 GB. But you'd have to shell out.
      • vypergts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Regular SD is only up to 4 gb. SDHC which is really like a 2.0 revision of the spec supports up to 2048 GB in theory. So far manufacturers have only announced up to 32 GB but we probably won't see any of those for sale until Jan 2008.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital_card#SDHC
      • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+48GB SD cards can be picked up for around $70. 16 and 32GB SD cards are just around the corner, too. So for $70 you can have it hold an additional 1,750 songs.
      • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Protoss - Yeah, but you could have *multiple* cards if you wanted. Carry around a tiny case (think business card holder-sized) with your various media cards, and just select and pop-in the one you want. "Oooh, I want to look at my photos--click, click--here they are; now I want to listen to some of my less listened-to music--click, click--okay, cool, now let me find that recording of a post-show jam session with my favorite band..."

        Not having to worry about capacity and swapping media is certainly nice, but having the capability to insert a secondary storage medium--or maybe even being able to *replace* the original medium itself--would be even better.

        No matter what you do, it will soon enough have too little storage, much sooner than the end of the useful life of the product. Having the capability for the device to "grow with you" makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, with the iPods, Apple doesn't seem to understand this notion.
    • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If they had room for a SD slot, they could have just put in a HD.
    • Monopole, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I've got one of those. Touchscreen, WiFi, Bluetooth, webbrowser, 3.75" 480x320 screen, removable SD memory, plays any format you can think of. Doesn't even need iTunes to synch. I was just taking a flight with it this week. I had four 4GB SD cards in a little holder and traded them out as needed. Listened to a lot of music, watched some movies, read some ebooks, navigated the drive with a bluetooth GPS, really great! Oh, wait that's my Palm T|X that's been out for nearly 2 years!
      • mikeazorin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Betcha that didn't have CoverFlow.
  • mattc908, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4Me and Darrelc might be the only 2 that see this, YOUR SOUND QUALITY GETS Halved, so lest say you most of you music isnt *cough* pirated and you bought it at 128kbit/s form itunes store, its already mediocre quality, and you half that to 64kbit/s, prepare for it to sound like crap.

    But most of your music is CDs/High Quality *downloads* than you half that its not gonna sound as good. So dont be suprised...
    • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3RTFA.
    • Protoss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't think most people are seeing it this way, or the fact that you don't need this app to kill the quality of your already lossy music.
  • thebenchase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23The reason I buy mp3 players with so much storage is to take high bitrate music with me. It may double your storage, but any loss in sound quality is not worth any loss in storage to me.
  • devin_mm, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3As someone who prefers their songs in the 10-30MB range (about 800-1000kbps) I think I'll pass.
    • Jones82, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24theres no way you can tell the difference b/t 500kbps and 800
      • oneoverzero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3500 is still in the lossless range

        i can tell the difference between 320 and lossless, though it is tough sometimes.
    • KeepSwinging, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, you'd need some extremely high end audio equipment, a highly trained ear, and some kind of miracle to notice the difference
      • alive1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Forget everything but the miracle. Only one out of six sextillion people could hear the difference, and I bet some loser on digg isn't one of those people.

        Other than that, his point is valid. Only idiots listen to music that still sounds good at low quality.
    • getrealnow, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Not really, i have foobar2k->-flac->julia@->darkvoiceamp->senn 580s and its really easy to tell the difference. Its like hearing 68 kpbs and 320kbs you can really tell.
  • LoganT, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1I don't know but 8 GB's is plenty of storage for me. Maybe it's because I don't have thousands of songs (only 113 actually). So with 8 GB's I could fit music, podcasts, and enough video.
    • reav3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13how do you live?
      • ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7he only has 113 songs, but i bet he has still payed for more music than most people on here.
      • LoganT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's basically I'm really picky with music. I'm always looking for new music.
      • Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Good songs are so hard to find. I don't want hundreds of awful metallica songs. I'd much rather have a few great songs in high quality.
        • Protoss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Well theres your problem, you're listening to Metallica.
    • LiquidFusion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Same here. I don't need 1000s of music files to keep me going. The 170 or so I have is enough. Though I'm not railing on those who do have lots of music.

      Besides, I'm waiting until someone hacks the Touch so I can use it the way I want, not the way Apple tells me to.
  • DataX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4LAME at -V 0-9 already does this.
  • InspectorGadget, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Lossy-to-lossy transcoding sucks. There's nothing magical about this application other than the fact that the developer has somehow managed to pull the wool over some people's eyes.
    • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Indeed. Go back and re-rip your CDs at a lower bitrate. Or re-rip using M4A instead of MP3, which can give you the same bitrate in a slightly smaller file size. I wonder just how bad the ears are of some people in the world, when they claim that techniques such as ShrinkMyTunes have little-to-no negative impact on sound quality. :( On of the biggest reasons I essentially stopped downloading music online (legit and otherwise) was my noticing just how great the iPod can sound playing properly ripped music files.
      • Sanfam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Just a correction...

        You mentioned switching to M4A over MP3 because of reduced filesize at the same bitrate. This is flawed, in that a single song encoded using different codec at the same bitrate will produce nearly identical file sizes. The data is being written at the same rate, x kilobits per second of audio.

        But your first suggestion is sound. Just re-rip at a lower bitrate using AAC. The quality boost over MP3 is significant enough to get away with a substantial drop for *most* users without trouble. My picky ears won't let me settle for anything less than 320, but the average user doesn't care about quality benefits above 128. Even 112 with AAC might be sufficient, though I would suggest against setting the minimum so low.
  • Rileyper, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1Killer app to kill the battery time with decompressing...sigh
    • kiensoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11LOL, it doesnt work that way dude.
    • pkulak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You decode all MP3s the same way regardless of the compression used.
      • InfiniteNothing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually, you increase battery time because of less filling of the buffer.
        • sl123000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's flash memory, so filling a buffer either isn't necessary or doesn't use very much power
  • ClassicalBadger, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2"To test ShrinkMyTunes, we started with a little classic rock. On the "Best Quality" setting, David Gilmour's acoustic guitar and breathy vocals on Pink Floyd's "Wots ... Uh the Deal" lost little of their sheen, though a small amount of washiness was introduced in the very highest frequencies. The Floyd's rocking "Free Four" also remained loud and sharp. Both tracks were reduced in size substantially, ending up about half their original bulk."

    Dugg because Obscured By Clouds is a brilliant Pink Floyd album.
  • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Sorry, Apple should be making products with more space, not making consumers go around them.

    And we should be moving towards better compressions, not compressing mp3 more than what it already is, give me a break. Jobs and co should of just came out with 1 iPod, an iPod touch, with 40 gigs or more of space. I'm not going to choose between ugly (classic Ipod), and superficial (touch Ipod).
    • pilot3033, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The first iPods had very little space themselvs, as the technology grew, so did the size of the hard drive. Worry not little one, soon enough we shall see larger capacity iPod touches.
      • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I will wait for that day, but for now, no dice
    • InfiniteNothing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You do realize that 40 gigs of flash memory in the same form factor alone would cost >$1000 right?
      • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1who said anything about form factor? You telling me apple can't make an Ipod touch with 40 gigs or more?

        No one complained about the video ipods not being slim enough. Whatever though, in 2 years, when the iPod touch is as slim as a piece of paper, and holds 2 gigs, it guess it will be all worth it, for that SLIM FORM FACTOR.
      • Nielske, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3flash memory uses less power then a disk, and the ipod touch/iphone's screen/processor/.. use a lot more power then the normal classic ipods; its not only a matter of slim factor
    • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2p0tent1al- We already have better [forms of] compression. MPEG 4/Audio is much newer than MP3, and it can save quite a bit of disk space over MP3. (There are a number of other newer, better formats too, including Ogg... although I figure we should keep the format discussion within the realm of file types the iPod & iTunes can handle.)
  • mbradbury, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Just amuses me, as an old fellow, that only 15 years ago bought a 20 "Meg" hard-drive" and thought I was on the top of it all.
    Now 16 GB is not enough, in a thing the size of a calculator. Wow, in another 15 years we will look back at a 160GB iPod and think WTF.
    • RadiatedAnt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1true but by then we will need the super mega storage space because you will be storing each song with a lossless codec which = major storage space required. It'll be like jumping from cassette to DVD-A ;)
      • mbradbury, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Humm sort of like those round things we used to have, I think they called them records. just joking of cause.

    • sudowrestler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's a reality check to sometimes compare what you have under the hood now with back then. Science fiction. When's the last time you saw a trimmed-down version of an already small app for those with limited disk space? And I recall WordPerfect for DOS described as "bloated" at 6 megs.
      • mbradbury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes I agree. I did an upgrade of iTunes today and it was 34 MB funny thing is that when I saw it was 34MB I thought wow thats small and then I thought again. (thinking about my first ever hard drive which was 20MB)
    • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Every time I hear or see the use of the term DVD-A, I shudder. Nothing wrong with DVD-audio, just... *shudder*
      • ahoyhoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Now your a man! MAN! A manny manny man! MAN!
  • jasonh1234, on 10/10/2007, -3/+54If you're interested in this, I have a program that can turn all of your JPGs to 16 level grayscale .GIFs. It's shareware and costs $40 but it's cheaper than buying more memory.
  • turquoisefish, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I was in the Apple Store and still went for the 8 gig nano over the 80 gig old iPod (no classics yet). If you want huge space get a 160 gig iPod classic, if you want a pretty and clever player get iPhone or iPod touch.
    • mehan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2wtf is a "clever" player?
      • turquoisefish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1One with multi-touch, wifi and whatever iPod touch does
  • Lionhart, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11Call me lame but do you people actually listen to over 16 GBs of music on a weekly basis? I consider myself pretty musically savvy and I only have about 5 GB of mp3s.
    • Genetico, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I feel ya. I only have a 4g mp3 player and thats more then enough for me. I dont understand why people want to carry an entire library with them. To me an mp3 player is something i use from time to time when I am bored or in a car or going for a jog. I have a tera of music at home but lord knows I dont need access to it every minute of my life.
    • Antixian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yes if you get 15 different albums a week and you listen to all the newest crap then yeah you could easily do it. i have the 60 gb video ipod and it's almost full. although half of that is videos and tv shows. just depends on your usage preference.
    • KeepSwinging, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6The point of the iPod is to have your whole library with you at anytime, so if something you listened to years ago pops into your head you can go ahead and have it, not have to delete some stuff and swap around your playlist.
    • Coffeedemon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3For me it depends on mood. I have a (relatively small by some accounts) 43 GB collection. Sometimes one song will trigger the need to hear another song and I'd like to have as much of the collection with me as possible.
      • mbradbury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4People these days don't seem to be able to go without things, very sad.

    • DiggaDave, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1ya my 60gig has 56.6 gigs filled and i still have more on my computer. Shuffle the songs and i use all that space
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You're lame. I carry 27GBs with me and I'm thinking of upgrading. There's no reason to not carry everything; you never know what you'll want (or need).
    • eclipxe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're not.
    • jonatj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You sir are lame. I weekly listen to hundreds of tracks from genres diverse as folk and trance. Granted not everyone has the time or is as much of a music buff. But if I didn't care I'd just listen the radio. I want to hear what I want when I want, period.
    • bobartig, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I consider myself completely musically UNsavvy. I haven't bough music in maybe 8 years, and only purchased nominal amounts as a kid. I don't steal music, and only have my own collection, plus some of my girl friend's stuff on my computer. Still got more than 5 GB of music. I know people who own thousands of CD's, and their storage needs are just starting to be met by the current iPods.

      Frankly, I find the concept of organizing 100+ GB of music cumbersome, daunting, and not even worth my time, but some people are passionate about it.

      People are different. Most of the population will be fine with 4-8 GB, which is why the iPod Mini and Nano are the most popular PMPs, dwarfing the sales numbers of everything else ever. Some people will need the 30-80GBs. Some people will complain when the iPod can hold .5TB, because they'll still want to put more on it.
    • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2On the one hand, I like having absolutely everything I enjoy on my 60gb iPod (formerly top of the line capacity-wise... boo-hoo, moving on...). On the other hand, I realized I could trim it down to a 7-8GB collection of songs I absolutely must have on my iPhone. In doing so, I went back to my larger music collection and found there were countless albums I listened to once-or-twice, but then never again. (I'd hear a new song on the radio, pick up [or borrow] the CD, and never really get into it, leaving the album on my computer to never be played again.)

      So after being forced to choose what little I could survive with on my iPhone, I find my master music collection a good bit smaller too. Its still quite a bit larger than 8GBs, but not so large that I'm constantly running out of disk space on my computer. :-)
  • brianbennett, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4...yet another extension of the mediocrity is modern music and its delivery to the public.
  • YouandWhoseArmy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Am I the only one who thinks the ipod touch's (which I still think should be called the WiPod; Wifi, widescreen) least important feature is its ability to play music? I think the potential for 3rd party apps and access to the internet is what makes it amazing.
    • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That's actually pretty clever, "WiPod" pronounced like "iPod" instead of the Nintendo "Wii."

      I'm guessing Apple doesn't want to detract from the impact & power of the first word being "iPod." The first word is iPod, so the image and idea of iPod is immediately in your brain, while also unifying the other members of the iPod with the same first word. Brand unity and the immediacy effect. It's Marketing fused with Psychology. :-) Bleh.
      • YouandWhoseArmy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1thank you. I am quite clever. Also, I think from a branding standpoint it would be better to differentiate the ipod touch from the ipod more because, as i said, i think it's least important feature is playing music. With WiPod I think you get the best of both worlds. It's a new item, more than just a music player yet it still retains that functionality. Apple, if you are listening, I need a job. (even thesolomon thinks Im clever)
  • microscope, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0When are we getting external battery operated HDs that are connected to the iPod via bluetooth? One pocket for the iPod, another for the HD!
    • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Battery operated Bluetooth HDDs?! God, I *hope* never. Have you ever actually attempted to transfer data over Bluetooth? Just downloading the ring tones from my cell phone was painful enough. I can only imagine the torture experienced from a 100% Bluetooth hard drive. Even with the increased data rates, it's still not anything on the order of speed required for reasonable data transfer times.
  • L0g1X, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11YOU GUYS DONT GET THE POINT! It's about filling up your iPod so you can brag about how much music you have. It also makes you qualified to complain about how the iPod never has enough space.

    I try to make my files BIG by converting them to MP3 files. It fills up my iPod faster. Now that my iPod is filled, I have bragging rights. DO YOU?

    /sarcasm
    • Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I have more music than would fit on the 160gb classic.. i dont brag about it... I dont even own a ipod
      • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think stating the amount of music you own is in fact bragging, at least in the context of this discussion. ;-)
      • patw85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Congratulations! you win....nothing
  • sega01, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2How much music can people possibly have? 16GB is huge, even for WAV's. 16GB=23 CD's if the CD's were each a full 74 minutes. Perhaps I'm a little picky about my music, but I don't have the money to fill up even 4GB with uncompressed music. Compression to already low quality digital reproductions of sound is horrible, it's torture on the ears. Analog FTW!
  • kris33, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Seriously... This is useless. A much better idea would be an app that automatically converted my MP3s into AACs at the best bitrate possible.
    • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Converting an MP3 to AAC will make it sound worse than that MP3; this is more useful than what you just described.
    • bobartig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You can't take a set amount of information (i.e. your current MP3 at say 128 kbps, 44.1khz sampling rate), and extrapolate that to higher definition music (like 320kbps 48khz AAC). You'd need some sort of divine device that could analyze the digital stream, determine what its listening to, and then determine what "sounding better" is, then apply that at every point of the track. It would have to be able to listen to it, realize that its Paul McCartney when he was 32, two guitars, a drum set, and a sitar, then realize how it would sound better, (despite the compressed file, original recording, and musician+instrument having not done a better job), then input the additional appropriate information. Trust me, I really want that device, but it can't be done without probably God, AND a time machine. And, I don't believe in God.
    • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's called iTunes. ;-) Seriously, take a couple evenings and re-rip your CDs using M4A (AAC) instead. It is well worth it compared to converting your MP3s to AAC or using something like ShrinkMyTunes. You will thank yourself later.

      Plus with automatic album artwork download through iTunes, it's a lot less painful. (I had to do the artwork by hand when I re-ripped my library using M4A. That was a bit painful.)
  • CaptainRotundo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2I am done with the iPod. The iPod touch is such a lack-luster over priced product I am astounded. Just as the iPods were seeming price competitive they and some useless flair and cut the space to bring them back to their overpriced glory.
    • TheSolomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You seem to be focusing only on the iPhone and iPod Touch. Look a little to the left... a little more... you see all the colored iPods? Good! The Shuffles are still the same price (aka: no price increase). And see the classic? It's the same price as before, but now its thinner with crazy increased capacity. (aka: even more for your money)
      • timro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not to mention the Nano with a DROPPED price and MORE features, such as larger screen and video!
  • greekgoat91, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I'd prefer to keep my music at V0 and 320kbps, thank you very much
  • Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I have never had a device ver 8gb.. i simply choose what i want on it and rotate stuf in and out.. i dont need my entire collection on it .. and with video if i dont see any need to view it again i remove it.. 16gb is alot of data.. 10 years ago that was a big hardrive in you PC... now everyone says it nothing..
    Its not how big it is, its how you use it :)
  • ImOscar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Reviews like this really need to be done in a blind test. Listen to version 1 of track A, take notes, listen to version 2 of track A, take more notes and compare. Then go see if your notes make any sense based on which version was at which quality.

    I'm guessing most people could pick out the compressed track with about 60% accuracy.
    • joshpowell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I picked it out with 100% accuracy using foobar's ABX plugin. 15/15. (0% chance of guessing)

      Sounded like *****.
  • Zandarrr, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3For *****'s sake it is iPod!!! Stop capitalizing the i.
  • RadiatedAnt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10How is this the killer app? Transcoding from one lossy format to another is the worst thing you could possibly do to your music collection if you were indeed a true music lover. It's like watching an HDTV with vaseline smeared on the screen, pointless.
    • psiphre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6don't make judgements about my sex life
  • KDX200rider, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Well it is official, the Apple fanboys have taken over Digg. I count no less that 6 stories on the front page.....Sweet Jesus make it stop!!!
    iTunes, iPhone, iPod,........... *****.
  • dougmidkiff, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6why do you have to have ton of music to be a "true" music lover?
    • psiphre, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2for the same reason that you need tons of wives to be a "true" woman lover
  • Trunks7j, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If they really are worried about storage space they should be going with a different codec alltogether like aacv2
  • Insid3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No difference between that "magic NASA technology" and Lame@64kbps: http://bayimg.com/aagHIAAbM
    If you can't hear anything above 10000Hz, you have some problems with your ears.
    • AttackingHobo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thank you for the visual refference. The shrunk one and the Lame one are identical.
  • blitzpa9, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0I guess people seem to forget we have these wonderful things called networks, where computers and ipods talk to each other for unlimited storage.
  • sammyjankis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2it's pretty cool but i could definitely tell the difference in the quality of from the original to the shrink version. most of my music is encoded in 192K anyway but if it's something in my top most played playlist then it's encoded at the highest possible. i wouldn't shell out $40 for this software though i'll just make do with the 16gb.
  • h3llscaper, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Why is this still up at the top? Who the ***** in their right mind wants their already ***** 128kbps encoded tracks downsampled to 64kbps using a magical $40 program? Actually, I'm digging this up in hopes that iTards actually do that and in turn ***** their hearing up by listening to their crap with all sorts of artifacts blaring in their eardrums.
  • brettotte1, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3why does anyone need more than what they can listen to in one sitting or how long the battery lasts? i still have my 1gb ipod shuffle hanging around my neck and it holds 14 hrs of music! ooooh no screen. well um I don't need it. who looks at the album covers? isn't the point of music to LISTEN TO IT? not view an album cover. i could care less.
    • ThatsUnpossible, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"why does anyone need more than what they can listen to in one sitting or how long the battery lasts?"

      Because I don't want to waste time juggling music? Because I don't know what I'm going to want to listen to when I go away for a week? Because it's easier than having to think about what music to "pack"? Because I don't want to go backwards?
  • zeroomegazx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2buried on the account that this is just more unnecessary iPod jibberish that you can already do as stated above.....

    The average iPod owner is a retard or they wouldn't own one if they actually knew what a rip the thing is
  • NthVenus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I believe that like me and any other audiophile that an application like this whilst being created with good intentions isn't very practical in terms of solving issues with lack of space or wanting to double the amount of songs that can be held on an MP3 player. Re-encoding a lossy music file which has probably lost a fair range of its low and high frequenices already results in what sounds like a distorted racket. Yes I understand that it might be good for perhaps the majority of people but nothing sounds like the original hence why I am now ripping all my CDs using Apple Lossless (for use on my 160GB iPod classic when I purchase one next month), ask the guys who were around when vinyls were as popular as music downloads. I believe the best way to get small file sizes is getting the selecting the options and settings for your chosen encoder correctly. At the end of the day you pay good money for a tool which is probably poorly developed, not maintained and transforms music which is likely to be as near CD-quality as you can get with a lossy encoder to a horrible din. Lossless encoding is what any real audiophile uses whether it be FLAC, ALAC, WAV etc.
  • jonatj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The simple fact is the usefulness of the iPod Touch is diminished by it's capacity. No one can argue otherwise. The iPod is not just a music holder.
    It can playback:
    Movies
    TV Shows
    Music Videos
    Pictures
    Podcasts
    Audiobooks

    And sync with Outlook for contacts/calendar and be used as a portable hard drive. 16GB is too small to use it for anything but a mediocre music collection, a few photos and a video or two. Steve Jobs knows this and you can bet is trying to make arrangements to secure more flash memory resources. Feature-wise the iPod Touch/ iPhone is pretty saturated, at least now Apple can motivate people to upgrade by increasing the storage capacity of the device. I'll bet you by the next annoucement, these devices will have double the flash memory. It will never be enough for everyone, but the technology moves forward and we continue to accumulate media.
  • cjohnson78, on 10/10/2007, -1/+116GB may be 1/10th the size of the largest iPod, but keep in mind, it is more than 3 times larger than the first iPod. It's all relative.
  • DaleoftheUK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Double your storage by waiting for the 32gb version.
  • jkichline, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think what you all may be missing is trick up Apple's sleeve. iPod touch is due in October right? Leopard is due out in October right? Both a Apple's flagship products right? Ah... if you recall, one of the features of Leopard is "my Mac" which allows you to access the contents of you mac from any other mac. iPod Touch runs OSX right? iPod touch has WiFi right? iPod Touch has WiFi iTunes right? The killer apps will not be compression, the killer app will be the ability to access all your media from your home computer, sync it wirelessly, in the palm of your hand.
    • frederoil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4you're a moron right?
    • trongod05, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How the ***** am I going to access my media from the gym where the best connection they have is a radio station that can broadcast their ***** music to your FM tuner?

      Apple dropped the ***** ball on storage because they want everything to be flash. ***** flash! I need more storage and flash just doesn't cut it right now and it's too expensive!
  • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2The iPod Touch can't even migrate 20GB iPods. 4G or older. Hell, the 8GB model can't migrate 1G 10GB iPods.

    Apple's trying to cram their square customers into round holes.

    My 3 year old 20GB iPod won't migrate to the brand new, bleeding edge iPod touch? One step forward, two steps back in my opinion.
  • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I guess this is a windows-only app. There's a GPL app for the mac called Max (http://www.sbooth.org/Max) that does what I assume this program does. It's quite handy, not just for shrinking files for my iPod Shuffle, but also to convert to MP3 for other players that don't support AAC. (I keep my music as 256kbps AAC).
  • nobogeys217, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Should've used a normal hard drive. I'm sure most people would not mind having a slightly thicker/heavier ipod in order to have more storage.

    An 80 GB iPod classic is only .1 inches thicker than the touch model.

    Still cool though.
  • kc9fjc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1does not convert AAC which is the itunes standard
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.