What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Giving a Smart phone? Finding The Right One Just Got Easier. view!
bestbuy.com - Best Buy has all the phones and carriers in one place so you can quickly compare prices & features.
217 Comments
- SmackMyMac, on 10/10/2007, -17/+105If they had put even a 40 gig hard drive in the touch i would have laid down the $399 in a heartbeat. Thickness is honestly not as important to me as storage when it comes to a PMP.
I watched engadget in horror as my dream iPod was flushed away when Jobs announced 8GB and 16GB models. *cry* - tehWyman, on 08/19/2009, -13/+100I just wish they would have waited for their lead iPod to be based on flash until a) It was cheaper and b) It could store around two times as much.
- Zap2, on 10/10/2007, -15/+67I'm very happy Apple went with flash , saves battery life, cut down thickness, pushes the flash market further, hard to break, less heat(could hurt touch screen)
Want storage, buy the classic! - hove, on 10/10/2007, -4/+43I believe you actually meant to push the little green thumbs up button on the top right of his comment.
- kethraal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+37"I like how people are actually okay with them going from $2 or $3 per gig of storage to $25/gig."
That's assuming that the rest of the device (touchscreen, ARM cores, WiFi, etc.) doesn't cost anything.
It does.
For some of us, we're not just "gobbling it down" because it's Apple. The iPhone/iPod Touch are relatively cheap as far as WiFi-enabled, multimedia devices go -- and most people don't use more than a few gigs on their music players anyways. Yes, you, as a more technical individual, might have a huge music collection which you just _absolutely have_ to have with you at all times.... but most people just need something with some songs on the way to work or at the gym, etc.
The more I look at it, Apple's kinda dealing with the same scenario that web hosts are. People want insane storage capacities, even if they're never going to use them. When a host does offer a reasonable amount of storage, they're laughed down with cries of "Psh... _only_ 20 GB..." -- even if the user never uses more than a few megs for their blog.
Oh well. Bottom line: some people like small, long-lasting, touchscreen devices... others think that having some crazily large drive is more important. Each group will buy devices to suit their needs, and then proceed to ridicule the other group for not wanting exactly the same device as them. - sakuraz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38Why?
By making one this early, it creates demand, that will in turn lower the overall price faster.
Doing this will let you have your DreamPod faster than if it didn't. - cypher35, on 10/10/2007, -5/+31Damn, I read flash and thought that the web browser was now supporting flash... That got me excited for a moment.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -29/+47I like how people are actually okay with them going from $2 or $3 per gig of storage to $25/gig.
That's how you know people are true consumers who gobble up whatever they put out. I mean, it's a good product, but it does need at least 3x the space they're offering. Period.
It doesn't matter if it's flash or a physical dis. The reality is, it's just a portable music player. The more space you have, the better. Even if you don't use it all up or carry your entire music collection on you (and why wouldn't you?), more space is always good. That sort of "I don't need space" is on par with "Who cares if the batteries only last 2 hours. Who wants to listen to music for that long anyway?" - like you gotta be kidding me...
Thing that's hilarious is people aren't any wiser. They're almost defending Apple in this move! - bromac, on 10/10/2007, -23/+38Sorry, it can't beat my 3 year old 4G iPod in space. How the hell is this such a huge step forward?
If I can't migrate my antique iPod to the brand-new "top of the line" iPod...well it's not so top of the line. - skyh, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1916 gigs is cool for music, but for those people who want to have a lot of video with them, 16 gigs just doesn't do it.
- ronin510, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15I'm sorry, but do you know how technology works? With more people purchasing flash players, even the ones with "small space" right now, the costs will go down. The bigger sized flash components will be *cheaper* as well. 8GB and 16GB seems small now, but they do have 32GB+ flash components and eventually the 60/80/160GB range. Unfortunately, those cost too much to put into a consumer product. If you don't remember, the same was said about 15/20/30/40/60/80GB 1.8" hard disk drives. The costs of those components go down because companies like Apple, Samsung, Creative, etc purchase them in huge orders. Even though I'm not planning to purchase a iPod touch, I'm glad to see it is being mass produced.
- Msonier, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Flash isn't ready for these iPods yet. yeah, it is great for something like a nano, but the ipod touch is also going to be used for video, 16gigs? Thats a waste, The 160 gig classic makes me drool because i could get my whole audio, video, and picture library on there and still have room to spare for the future.
- BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15There are really three choices:
1. Buy what Apple offers now
2. Buy what someone else offers now
3. Hold off until you get what you want
I'm doing option #3, the 32GB iPod touch. There's no reason to think the world ends now because you can only get a 16GB Touch. Shouldn't be too long before 32GB and 64GB flash modules are available. - Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I like the option of having all my music with me. Thats why I have a full 60gig Ipod and not a nano
- plbland, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Screen Size + Processing.
- JackQuack, on 10/10/2007, -11/+20Only problem is that the flash ipod DOES NOT have better battery life.
- Mohdoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9The main reason that I am happy to see the touch go with Flash Memory is that it is placing a higher demand on flash memory as a whole, and could inspire other companies to go the same way. We really need to be moving away from spinning hard drives and make our way into solid-state.
- longfocus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9So you don't want them to update their iPod line up until flash becomes cheap enough to replace the 80/160GB? That makes no sense because that will take several years for the price to come down that much for flash. It makes perfect sense for them to start marketing the next generation (touch) iPod with as much flash as they can get it now and then begin building it up just like they've done in the past...
- alexmuller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10+ Wi-Fi
- subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Or, perhaps, despite your high and mighty, all-knowing attitude, not everyone on the planet has the same set of needs and desires that you do.
For me, the larger screen, touch interface, wifi, and web browser are all MUCH bigger factors than storage space. In fact, I'll be going with an 8GB iPhone because that's still enough storage to get me through a couple of days (during which I have multiple opportunities to sit down and sync different files on if I want) and it offers features and a "user experience" that can't be matched by any other device on the market.
For me, storage space is at the bottom of my list of purchase criteria. The driving force behind this purchase, for me, is the ability to have a real, usable web browser in my pocket when I'm on the go. The ability to throw a few songs or some video on there is just a pleasant bonus. - noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Out of curiosity how much do you carry with you at any given time? 16 GB would cover a good amount I think.
- RyanBlueThunder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Are you serious? Have you seen the size of the screen on the iPod touch??? The screen is the main battery drain. It's not hard to figure out.
- Darkjedi, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16I don't care about the ecofriendly stuff. I just want to be able to fit all my music on one mp3 player.
the 30gigs can't cut it anymore, why would I by a 16gig? - BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9There are always 3 choices.
1. Get what Apple offers
2. Get what someone else offers
3. Wait until you get what you want
Yes, I'm holding out for a 32GB or 64GB flash-based iPod touch. No need to think the world is ending or Apple is doomed because those chips aren't available...yet. - peestandingup, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I think a lot of you bitching have been spoiled by your 80GB drives & are being nit picky babies. Listen, most people don't have nearly that much music/videos.
So, 16GB is enough for almost everyone & can fit their entire collection of music on it & a crap load of video too. For those who cant, get over it. Sync only the videos you plan on watching & then do it again when you're done. It wont kill you.
Apple is making a step in the right direction. This is why they succeed. Guts. You dont get where they are by playing it safe all the damn time. - samadam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Secondly, in four months they may well have a 32GB iPod touch. That should be enough for any reasonable music collection. Those who need more can wait a bit more, and they will have a 64GB iPod touch. Its not as if there isn't a trend of increasing capacities.
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Compared to what? There is no HD Touch to provide a point of reference.
- refreshers, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9No but your music collection might have
- ronin510, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You know, when the iPod was first introduced, a lot of people were complaining about the available hard drive space. It only had a 5GB hard drive, compared to 10GB or 20GB drives from other players. But the difference there was those players used 2.5" laptop hard drives, while Apple used the then new 1.8" portable hard drives. The prices for the 10GB players were even on par or cheaper than the iPod if I remember correctly.
Even with so many people complaining, others chose the iPod because of the user interface and it was *much smaller* than the laptop hard drive based players. With Apple and other companies placing mass orders on the 1.8" hard drive components, the prices on those became cheaper and gave the producers incentive to increase the capacity at a faster rate.
The same is happening now. People are complaining that other players, even in the same iPod family, have bigger space compared to the iPod touch. What they forget is the flash components of this new iPod is at its infancy. I don't mean to say that flash drives were just introduced recently, but that they are now introducing higher capacity drives that are meant to be hard drive replacements. It will not only be found in the iPod touch or iPhone, but in laptops or maybe even desktop computers. These flash based hard drive replacements give much better battery life, produce less heat, and sometimes faster access times.
The only way this newer technology can take off, increase capacity, and become cheaper is if companies use them. I hope Apple and other companies can do what they did with the 1.8" drives in a similar amount of time. - MikeF2005, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8This is just a stepping stone. Good for early adopters,, but I would wait.
- RapeApe, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14The reign of flash? What is this guy talking about? The Nano had already been outselling the Video iPod even if it wasn't the flagship iPod.
- samadam, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13I think the idea is that it isn't just a music player any more, and the criteria of benefits are different. I value having wifi and a web browser higher than I do having high capacity. I would trade off that capacity for a better interface and wifi. If, in reality, all it did was play music then your point would be perfectly valid. You would have a iPod classic, which is great.
But because it does other things, things that have value by themselves outside of playing music, then it may be worth $25/gig, which can be as easily stated $300/great interface or $50/application or $100/really small dimension or $20/square inch of touchscreen, etc. Changing your measurement of value from storage space shows that it is easily irrelevant to the iPod touch. - synagence, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7As much as i was disappointed to see the smaller storage from apple for the new touch ... i am actually thinking it will give a really good push to the flash memory industry ... drive prices down, enable manufacturing investment and improvement to kick in and help in the end ....i'm getting on even though i have a full 60g 5g ipod
- gamersedge, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10True, but id still rather 30 Gb rather than 8. i mean, JESUS 8 gb is like 4 movies.
@JackQuack, its because of the screen/wifi - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Why are people digging him down? He is right, the nano is the most popular iPod model.
- AndyVenus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"Would you want it to be 2x as thick?"
Yes. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I dont think Apple had much choice. The screen is already a big batter drain, if you add in a HD then thats a second big drain. So in order to get a good battery life out of it it would have to be a whole lot bigger, not just the size of adding a hard drive.
I am with you, its not big enough for me. But I understand why they had to do it. - fantasticFlan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Well, I've got over 20 gigs of things I like. And if someone likes crappy music, that's their own business.
- dagamer34, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I don't think people really understand the economies of scaling. Unless you have a product that needs a large amount of flash, there is no way to get back the R&D from developing cheaper flash without going into the hole for a quarter or two, making investors very antsy. Now that there is definitely some strong demand to create cheaper flash chips, we should start seeing much more aggressive development so that prices go down in years to come.
Remember that the 1G iPod used a 1.8" HDD when it was a brand new form factor, and you got 5GB for $399. Because the iPod was so popular in years to come, that's when we were able to shove 80GB on a single platter for the $249 iPod classic. Basically, you have to start somewhere. Apple isn't looking and what the market is asking for today, but several years ahead into the future. - sishgupta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5He isn't saying high demand = low price, because that isnt true.
But, if flash becomes more popular, more money will be invested in research and process methods which can make the cost of producing flash drives cheaper, and these cost savings will be passed down to the consumer.
In addition it will help to proliferate the switch from HD's to flash, which can possibly help increase flash competition, which in turn can help lower prices. - synagence, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The other point about the flash based ipod is basically that apple always go for style as much as functionality.
Its basically resetting the game .... in 2 years we'll be complaining when they release the next big thing with *only* a mere 100Gb of flash ..
The Nano is still the #1 selling ipod right now so seems like most people can cope with smaller flash sizes ... many people can't get iphone but want the touch and widescreen .... every technology device is a compromise....this is simply no different
The harddrive would just bulk up the device and kill battery life too much right now .... but i think its the right decision for now as it will drive demand for flash ram ever higher which means (just like laptop harddrives have now crested 200gb) flash ram will top 100gb in no-time as manufactures are ever more confident that there is a sustainable market and can make that long term investment which will help prices - hepj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6No, but it does have a bigger screen to power.
- plbland, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8It seems I'm one of few that isn't that bothered about HD size. I'd much prefer the current size and look than bulking it up a couple of mm.
Current Library 4.82 GB - and I could easily trim this to 2 GB of songs I actually want to listen to.
It's simply really. If you want GB's then get the classic or wait 6 months for apple to release a bigger touch. - bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yeah, I only put crappy music on my iPod....right.
I like a lot of different music. I like not having to chose what's on my playlist and instead having it all at my fingertips. This is what appeals to most people about iPods - the ability to carry around your ENTIRE music collection.
Or not. Damn you, Touch. I'll be waiting for 2G. - knde, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I'm the complete opposite. I have an 8GB nano and at any given time I barely even use up to 4GB. I have just over 11,000 songs on iTunes but I just don't feel the need to have it all with me.
- cg0def, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4exactly. You are not trying to move from a classic ipod to a new generation of classic ipod but to a flash based one. Also if you think that the iTouch is not the top of the line flash memory based PMP go find one that has more storage capacity or more features.
But I still think that the iPhone should come with just as much storage ... After all the iTouch is just an iPhone with less hardware and more storage. - jaisin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Because they don't think that anyone buys anything other than the biggest one.
- itsme92, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4But the iPod Classic, which is hard drive based, gets 30-40 hours depending on the model, while the iPod Touch only gets 22 hours
- dagamer34, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4what kind of movies are you encoding that require 2GB per movie? Heck, DVD rips don't use that much!
- ScrabbyDoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5One purpose of portable music players, is portable music playing
-
Show 51 - 100 of 217 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is