or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Rumor: October should deliver new iPods, Pro machines
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: October should deliver new iPods, Pro machines - Page 2

post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by 666
till they hit 200 gig, i don't give a sh!t

why write sh!t - it's not as if no-one knows what you're saying, if you're going to swear at least do it properly.

200GB would be impressive!
post #42 of 65
The problem Apple faces is that increases in capacity will ultimately become less and less meaningful. A 200 GB iPod would be useful for videos if they were worth playing back on a small screen, but that's about it. What about the rest of your content? If you figure that the average album is about 650 MB (a full CD), even uncompressed audio would give you over 300 albums on a 200 GB iPod. That's just tons of space, and most people can't use it effectively.

I think Apple's more likely to shrink the iPod and keep similar capacities than to go much higher.
post #43 of 65
Apple must release an iPod with bigger space just to save their own business. Ipod nano is (sort of) killing off the 20GB ipod. They'd better separate the market with a bigger difference in disk size.

My only concern is - is the battery going to be better?
post #44 of 65
200GB would even be possible for a year or so if they made the iPod larger, like the near-brick known as the Nomad Zen (possibly even larger), as it would need a 200GB 2.5" laptop drive that isn't available, and there doesn't even exist a 100GB 1.8" drive that I'm aware of. Heck, in the desktop hard market, 200GB is just about mainstream now, I know 500GB is for sale though.

All in all, a 200GB iPod is unrealistic for a few years yet. I gave up the idea of carrying ALL my music with me, that's unrealistic, I think it's more realistic to occasionally change out the music. Lately, I've been experimenting with putting only 4GB on my 20GB to see how much different my listening experience would be so I can use the much more pocketable nano, and IMO, my listening hasn't changed a bit.
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
why write sh!t - it's not as if no-one knows what you're saying, if you're going to swear at least do it properly.

200GB would be impressive!

On some boards, the software turns shit into @#$% whereas sh!t slips by. He's just ensuring that he swears properly. It's not really necessary here thogh as in the magical land of AI we can lay down all kinds of profanities. Fuck fuckity fuck fuck.... neat huh?
post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by Commodus
The problem Apple faces is that increases in capacity will ultimately become less and less meaningful....
That's just tons of space, and most people can't use it effectively.

A higher capacity iPod 100GB, 200GB whatever, would be great for those of us who use high sample rates when importing music from our CDs. The current ITMS rate (128kbps) is a joke if one has ANY interest in high fidelity sound. I use 256kbps for the few discs I've bothered to import, but still find it wanting.

If there were more iPod capacity, I might use the Apple Lossless Encoder, but as it stands, I don't bother.

I would actually like to see a DRIVELESS iPod that I could attach to an exteernal hard drive or series of hard drives, connected via FireWire, so that I could import Apple Lossless or even straight-up AIFF audio files. THEN I could connect it to my HiFi system and have much more of my music available.

I collect classical music and have many pieces with multiple performances (different conductors, orchestras, soloists, etc.) and it would be great to be able to quickly compare interpretations of different pieces without digging through the CD collection.

Let's call it the HiFiPod.
Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply
Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply
post #47 of 65
I don't get the bitrate obsession? Aren't CD's a lossless 96 kbps? I always thought it was the lossy compression that hurt MP3 quality and not bitrate.
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by jeffharris
I would actually like to see a DRIVELESS iPod that I could attach to an exteernal hard drive or series of hard drives, connected via FireWire, so that I could import Apple Lossless or even straight-up AIFF audio files. THEN I could connect it to my HiFi system and have much more of my music available.

I collect classical music and have many pieces with multiple performances (different conductors, orchestras, soloists, etc.) and it would be great to be able to quickly compare interpretations of different pieces without digging through the CD collection.

Let's call it the HiFiPod.

For the home sound system, I think what you want might be called the Airport Express. Another means would be to use an HTPC of some form, and that HTPC could remotely mount the networked drives that you keep your media on, or mount a local drive. I would suspect that you'd want your computers and drives in another room due to potential noise issues. You could use a Bluetooth enabled phone or PalmOS PDA to control iTunes.
post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by Guartho
I don't get the bitrate obsession? Aren't CD's a lossless 96 kbps? I always thought it was the lossy compression that hurt MP3 quality and not bitrate.

CDs are nearly 1500 kbps. Lossless compression codecs bring that down to about 700kbps.
post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by ThinkDifferent
Guys, Apple just announced its BIG item for the fall...

Unless we see another MUSIC EVENT, popping up anytime soon, I doubt we'll see another new iPod. More likely just a PM upgade, maybe mac mini too...

In reality, Apple's done for the year, we all know it, just not willing to accept it. DENIAL!!!!!

The poster over at MacRumors that got the details (1),(2) of the iPod nano correct three weeks before its announcement has recently disclosed some details(1),(2) about the new video-enabled iPods as well. It looks to me like we have an actual source here.

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #51 of 65
I hadn't thought of it either, but Google to the rescue:

[i]"Im particularly pleased that the nano adds a Lyrics screen to the iPods Now Playing area. In this screen you can view any lyrics that youve added to the Lyrics tab of a Song Information window within iTunes 5. Currently the only way to add those lyrics is by handsongs sold by the iTunes Music Store dont (yet) have embedded lyrics.[i]

http://playlistmag.com/reviews/2005/...view/index.php






Try pearLyrics: http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macg...rics/index.php
post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by 1984
The poster over at MacRumors that got the details (1),(2) of the iPod nano correct three weeks before its announcement has recently disclosed some details(1),(2) about the new video-enabled iPods as well. It looks to me like we have an actual source here.

Video looks like a likely transition although I see no point to it. As long as they put the lyrics feature on my iPod I'll stick with it for the time being. I have no reason to buy a replacement for my iPod photo. Bigger screen is obviously necessary for video but will use more battery - Apple need to address the battery issue by doubling it.
post #53 of 65
(edited) it would be fun to have a iPod 80gb that had a direct video (s-video/composite/component (?????) out to TV. playing back videos on the TV directly from the ipod.......
post #54 of 65
Originally posted by Guartho
I don't get the bitrate obsession? Aren't CD's a lossless 96 kbps? I always thought it was the lossy compression that hurt MP3 quality and not bitrate....


if you could make a equal-to-or-better-than CD-quality lossless audio codec at 96kbps , apple, m$, creative, and napster would all be banging down your door. right now...
post #55 of 65
(removed double post (not my fault, i swear))
post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
[B]Originally posted by Guartho
I don't get the bitrate obsession? Aren't CD's a lossless 96 kbps? I always thought it was the lossy compression that hurt MP3 quality and not bitrate....


if you could make a equal-to-or-better-than CD-quality lossless audio codec at 96kbps , apple, m$, creative, and napster would all be banging down your door. right now...

There is a noticeable difference in audio quality between 128Kbps AAC and CD-quality but most people don't have good enough speakers to care or notice.
post #57 of 65
engadget has corroborated this rumor:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000253061388/
post #58 of 65
Originally posted by MacCrazy
There is a noticeable difference in audio quality between 128Kbps AAC and CD-quality but most people don't have good enough speakers to care or notice.


agreed
i think guartho was thinking though that there was a pure-lossless 96kbps compression format for CD. pure-lossless from CD at 96kbps would be quite an astounding breakthrough in codec technology...

personally though in the current digital audio consumer landscape, 128kbps AAC for all intents and purposes, although lossy, is considered CD-quality, so i suppose a 96kbps pure-lossless compression of CDs may be moot by now.... we can see the challenges "super audio cd" have been having outside of the audiophile demographic

edit:
so much of technology is marketing nowadays... i mean given the right backing and a better(??) name, OGG might have really taken off outside of geekland...?
post #59 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by Guartho
I don't get the bitrate obsession? Aren't CD's a lossless 96 kbps? I always thought it was the lossy compression that hurt MP3 quality and not bitrate.

I think you are confusing bit rate with sampling rate. CDs are 2 channel, 16-bit per channel, 44.1kHz sampling rate. So, the bit rate comes to 16*2*44.1 = 1411.2 Kbps (1.4 Mbps).

Lossless codecs are able to generally get a 50% compression rate and do it at about 700 Kbps.
post #60 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
engadget has corroborated this rumor:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000253061388/

Or, more likely, reiterated it.
post #61 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by 1984
The poster over at MacRumors that got the details (1),(2) of the iPod nano correct three weeks before its announcement has recently disclosed some details(1),(2) about the new video-enabled iPods as well. It looks to me like we have an actual source here.

As much as i would be very happy if that happened, PLEASE, this guy is spewing crap everywhere. When you spew enough crap, you do end up with the right answer at times. I just don't see Apple pulling something like a vid pod off. MAYBE an updated Airport Express...
post #62 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by ThinkDifferent
As much as i would be very happy if that happened, PLEASE, this guy is spewing crap everywhere. When you spew enough crap, you do end up with the right answer at times. I just don't see Apple pulling something like a vid pod off. MAYBE an updated Airport Express...

Well it doesn't sound that far off - there does need to be an update to the iPod - it's been a year and there's nothing to attract me to buy a new one mainly because the one I bought last year is still top-of-the-range.
post #63 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
So? Jobs lies, or at least, at the nicest, he changes his mind. He's rejected the idea of a computer built into an LCD screen, a flash-based iPod, a $500 computer and the idea of an iPod in a phone, who knows how many others.

I like his CRTs are dead,or the 3.0 G5 Powermac statement.Jobs spins as much as O'reilly. I dont expect much from Apple but a Intel Mac in a New case 1/2 the size of todays monster would be nice with modern cards. PPC is on the way out. dual core PPC isnt going to do much for me or Mac sales in my view and like Moto its still just paper. PPC makers have paper down to a science.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #64 of 65
Originally posted by BRussell
Or, more likely, reiterated it.


heh... i suspected my choice of the word "corroborate" would be somewhat of a stretch
post #65 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by jeffharris
A higher capacity iPod 100GB, 200GB whatever, would be great for those of us who use high sample rates when importing music from our CDs. [...]
Let's call it the HiFiPod.

Let's see. 200 GB, 300 MB per CD (Apple lossless), 670 CDs, at $12 per CD equals $8000.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Rumor: October should deliver new iPods, Pro machines