What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
294 Comments
- SilverRocket, on 10/10/2007, -8/+170iPod Classic = music fan
iPod Touch = toy fan - blakeley, on 10/10/2007, -22/+162I will just make this easy for everyone and say yes, they screwed themselves. I would have prefered a 160GB hard drive touch iPod, even if it was a little fatter...
- threepio, on 10/10/2007, -5/+113My lord - we're never happy are we?
One device at one price - "Apple restricts consumer choice! I want a cheap iPod! I don't need touch!"
Several devices with clear gaps in the marketing grid - "Apple doesn't cater to my needs! I wanted this feature and they don't offer any device that has it!"
Apple offers a device at each price point with varying features and reasons to upgrade (which they did today) - "Apple screwed themselves, they should have issued a super device!"
How does that go again? Damned if you do....? - corvin, on 10/10/2007, -18/+126I don't think they screwed themselves. Most people out there don't have more than 16gb of music, which is roughly 4000 songs. There aren't many people who actually need 160gb of space. Apple, currently, is catering to the widest base of consumers. Eventually they'll probably come out with a lot more space for the Touch.
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -5/+99Hmm...would you like the iPod home basic, the iPod home premium, the iPod business edition, or the iPod touch ultimate?
- SirNoobius, on 10/10/2007, -2/+49music yes but if you put videos on it that space becomes small.
- colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -5/+47Let's see here... thick hard drive + thick touch screen = 1 inch thick iPod Touch! I know some people here wouldn't mind an inch thick iPod, but I don't think Apple would sell very many... Apple sells tons of iPod Nanos with less hard drive space. They'll be fine.
- Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -4/+41iPod Classic = Digital Pakrat
- tjdoom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Aw man, I love being able to adjust the volume without reaching into my pocket. Didn't know you couldn't do that with an iPhone.
- colincsl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Is anyone else excited by the giant increase in battery life?
- HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+29It's an issue of battery life. An iPod touch with a 160GB HDD wouldn't be a little fatter, it be a lot fatter. You'd have the HDD which is going to take up a sizable piece of real estate, and then you are going to need a much larger battery if you even want to maintain the 22hr/5hr battery life. Size could actually double.
- YuriSakazaki, on 10/10/2007, -2/+28I'll probably get the 16 gig iPod touch, and I have far more than 16 gigs of music. When am I ever so far away that 16 gigs of my music ISN'T ENOUGH? On top of that, if I AM so far away from my computer that 16 gigs of music won't cut it, I most likely have my notebook with me anyway.
16 gigs of music is more than enough, bring on the iPod touch! It's an iPhone without the phone, just what I wanted. This coming from a guy who is pretty critical of Apple, as well. I really dig the iPod touch. The Nano looks dumb, but it's cheap. And the classic is just an iPod with a retardedly large hard drive. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25I think they actually did a great job at segmenting what the consumer wanted. They did a private survey to retailers asking what customers wanted and half the time they wanted one that just played music. The new iPod Nano is going to take away most of what the Sansa base had, seeing how 149.99 for a 4GB is a very good deal. Some people want more of a PDA and if you think about it a 16 GB PDA (iPod touch) is amazing and will also fit most who don't exactly need thousands of tracks but want the iPhone features.
As for the iPod classic, it will sell just as well and designed for those who really want all the music they have in their pocket. - kermithefrogand, on 10/10/2007, -4/+28i've been waiting a long time for a non-phone ipod... BUT now I am torn.
- gak001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Keep in mind that NAND technology is still expensive and no one wants a sony-esque tragedy in the pricing department. It would be a step backwards for the Touch to adopt an HDD. I'm sure once the NAND hits critical mass and prices drop that the Touch will skyrocket in memory capacity.
- Yerknutz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2216GB is plenty as far as I'm concerned. I don't need 45 years worth of music or video on my PORTABLE player. It's not a storage device for the packrat in all of us to archive everything we own... or have pirated. So you have to add or change some content on it every couple months, big deal. I also like solid state over fragile hard drives any day.
- kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18...and a torrent would be better quality because?
- cjh24, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20are you joking?
- vsaint, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22The best thing about all of this is the pressure it will put on other manufacturers to lower their prices.
- deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2216GB is pathetic? Learn how to use iTunes. I have a 60GB music collection and my 8GB iPhone is more than enough space.
- edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Really? Real people don't have that much music? Hmmm. I guess I'm not a real person then.
- modusop, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17I think it's a good compromise. You have the classic iPod, which serves the purpose of carting the whole library around, and you have the touch for the tech-hungry early adopters who aren't willing to cozy up to the iPhone. I think they'll have no problem making plenty of cash with this lineup.
- corvin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18yes, but how many people have enough time to watch an entire movie on their Ipod? I used to have a iRiver PMP. I had about 5 movies on there, but I never watched them. I just never had the time, and if I did I watched the movie on my big screen tv with surround sound; except for the one time when I was on an airplane. But other than that I never really watched any of the movies I stored.
Most people won't use the Ipod just to watch videos... - meez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Half of his collection of... audio porn? o.O
- Refrag, on 10/10/2007, -8/+22Have you used an iPhone? Really, it isn't better than an iPod at being an iPod. The iPhone is great, and it is by far the best phone out there and I love carrying just it instead of an iPod and a phone, but it is not a better iPod interface. Try adjusting the volume finely from the outside of your pants, try jogging through a long audio or video program, try shuffling your albums. Two of those things are impossible with the iPhone and one of them is very difficult.
- swaxhog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14I just checked my library. It's mostly 192-320kpbs. 16GB is around 3000 songs. That covered A to almost the end of C.
- SyDIGG, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16It is me or people can't think critically these days? Maybe because its technically not feasible? Look at the battery life of the new iPod Nano with a much smaller screen, flash drive and NO WiFI. Its a measly 5 hrs for video. What do you think will happen if Apple add a 160 GB hard drive, WiFi and increase the screen size to 3.5"? Maybe you can only play video for 2 hrs at most?
- meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Apple generally measure things as 128kbps AAC files
- Quix, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15"It's an issue of battery life."
Agreed. You just can't spin a hard drive and power that big, beautiful touch screen and expect to get decent battery life. Either the device would have to be much, much thicker to accommodate a substantially larger battery, or you'd have to live with poor battery life.
Design is all about compromises. Apple's compromise here (for now) is to limit the iPod touch to Flash RAM storage. You may agree or disagree with that decision, but it's a tough decision Apple had to make. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13You got a lot of porn
- Radar3D, on 10/25/2007, -1/+11He's going to get a [RED] nano too to help Africa.
- anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Sixteen gigabytes is enough room for about ten full-length feature films. I'd say "doesn't have the capacity for video" is just flat-out *****.
- BootsElectric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Live a little longer, meet more people that are actually IN to music, not just listening to it, but studying it, collecting it, experiencing it, and you'll find a lot of people listen to an obscene amount of music. Plus in addition to the video, a lot of people (yo) use it for file storage, there are tons of great uses for it as an external harddrive, its really convenient when on the road to be able to dump all your pictures and videos you've filmed onto your ipod instead of bringing an external harddrive in addition to everything else you might have.
- Azriel7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Just be patient and wait for the 2nd or 3rd generation Ipod Touch that will have a lot more space and more bells and whistles added.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -3/+11I know I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I thought I'd share my thought on this anyway.
First off, 8 and 16GB understandably seems like nothing compared to the 80 and 160GB of space offered in the iPod Classic. But really, its a matter of practicality over need. I'm not sure I know anybody who has a library of music that clocks in at over 16 gigabytes; I currently have a collection of around 2,500 songs on my 30GB G5 iPod that tops in at 13.0GB, and I probably don't even listen to two-thirds of them. The thought of 80 and 160GB absolutely blows my mind (as cool as it is!), and not counting the relative few who like to take their ENTIRE movie collection on-the-go with them, I really don't see why anyone needs that kind of monstrous storage space in reality. We as consumers sometimes tend to overlook the practical side of things, and simply gravitate toward that which will offer us the absolute most bang for our buck, with little thought to how we will actually put that cash investment to use (read: splurge).
I was initially bummed at the news that the space was comparitively limited in the flash-based iPod Touch, but its still three whole gigs over what I can carry. If not, hell, I've got Senuti and a whole desktop HDD in my mac anyway, and playlists can be swapped like nothing. Though I definitely welcome the addition of increased drive capacity in the iPod Touch in the future, and it will come in due time, I'd say there are plenty of other cool features on the device that have sort of been swept away in the flurry of boos and hisses over the storage space limitations, like Safari and WiFi and whatever else. I might get one for myself.
Sorry if I came off like I was pointing my finger at anyone, I'm not, I just felt like saying my piece. Whether the iPod Touch or the iPod Classic is a better investment of anyone's money for the biggest benefit is completely subjective, but I feel that most of the people who want to see an 80GB+ drive in the new models really don't have a need for that kind of behemoth space, unless you are an audiophile or a real cross-genre music whore, or you absolutely need to carry all ten seasons of Friends in full h.264 splendor on a 3.5" screen in your pocket. - Figs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Because *of course* that would imply that it's pirated... and *of course* everyone _knows_ that you go to the pirates for the real quality stuff since the media companies ***** themselves over...
- samadam, on 10/10/2007, -14/+21Real people don't have that much music. I have about 14GB and my friends are amazed. I don't even listen to much of it. 8GB for their price is just great. I have no reason for any more space, and most people, real customers who don't torrent massive amounts of music, my mom, my sister, my dad, etc, they only need 8GB.
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7my 4gen ipod only has 12 hours (at most) of battery life... i imagine thats enough for most users
- crash331, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Do you really spend more than 12 hours away from an AC outlet? Are you the Unibomber?
- svanloon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Totally agree with you. 16 Gig is junk space.
- grahamcase, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Did Apple screw themselves? No. No one device has everything, but the selection means that there is a device that is suitable for almost everybody. In time, the Touch will do more, have more capacity and cost less.
- thatsmyaibo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I call BS. But he has a point somewhere in there. I want the space for my 50 gigs of music but the iPod Touch only has 16 max and that's the one I want. I liked being able to carry all my music at once.
- rebotfc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You can adjust the volume easily enough with the rocker switch
- HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Like what? MPEG-4/AAC a pretty good format. The only thing I can think of that you might want to use is FLAC, which you can do with Rockbox.
- DanH, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I have 85 gigs of music and tons of videos for my iPod.. I guess I'm a figment of your imagination.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5you can't have your cake an eat it too.
- pabster, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I would have loved to see a 16GB Nano.
That said, the 16GB Touch looks fantastic. Definitely on the purchase list.
Truth be told, I can do with 8GB. - leo78, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"I have large bones"
What are you?.....a dinosaur. - coloneltcb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6and portable HDDs, especially ones that get jostled around a lot, fail all the time. There's no moving parts in a solid state flash based players, and they are much more reliable.
- Nerfdude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+64 megs per song? what is that, like 128, 160kbps max? gross, dude.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 294 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is