or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple may ax next-gen HDD iPod in favor of all-flash models
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple may ax next-gen HDD iPod in favor of all-flash models - Page 4

post #121 of 141
But there's still such a large difference in price between 3.5" and 2.5" drives.

I just bought 2 SATA drives - the 5400RPM, 2.5" 160GB drive cost 25% more than the 7200RPM, 3.5" 500GB model (both Seagates)

I expect 3.5" 500GB drives to be under $100 by the end of the year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The drive cap was difference was fairly large, but the move was made.

3.5" drives do come in 10k and 15k versions, with some work done on faster rotation, but without success. I don't know why you don't know that. Do you mean 2.5" instead?

There are no 15k drives in the 2.5" size, and, offhand, I don't recall if there are any 10k drives in 2.5, though I seem to remember an article about one somewhere.

We will be seeing 300 GB 2.5" drives before too long. That has already been stated by drive manufacturers. 500 GB drives are expected around 2008.

Most computers would be quite fine with 2.5" 300-500 GB drives rotating at 7,200 rpm.

3.5" models would linger a while longer, as did the full height 5.25" drives did after all the others had gone.
post #122 of 141
Well, spoke too soon. My 2 year old iPod Mini has completely bought it now. No music playing, internal logic board/ hard disk is causing hanging on the MacBook. Latest restore, etc, no good. Bring on Flash memory!!!.
post #123 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Those are 3.5" drives. The platters are not very much different.

The chassis form factor is the same, but every cut-away or open-top view of a 15k drive I've ever seen showed platters that were markedly smaller than that of a 7200 drive. Even in a thumbnail view the platter size is smaller by a very noticable margin. It's often not as apparent with the 10k drives, but the platters are usually at least a little bit smaller.

Quote:
We have the same situation here. These are not really 2.5" drives.

I'm speaking about standard drives. Those aren't out yet.

I'd say they really are 2.5" drives because the chassis width is the same as a notebook drive. I'm not sure what your hangup is about that. It wasn't meant for notebook use anyway. I have an extra tall (IIRC, 1.6" tall) 3.5" drive laying about, but I haven't heard of anyone trying to say it really isn't a 3.5" drive.
post #124 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

...I'd say they really are 2.5" drives because the chassis width is the same as a notebook drive. I'm not sure what your hangup is about that. It wasn't meant for notebook use anyway. I have an extra tall (IIRC, 1.6" tall) 3.5" drive laying about, but I haven't heard of anyone trying to say it really isn't a 3.5" drive.

Semantics, I guess... \ There are 2.5" drives meant for external, RAID, etc. and 2.5" drives meant for laptops specifically (9.5mm). It should be clear to the consumer/prosumer though, hope there is enough "education" on this matter.
post #125 of 141
The only way this would work is if the iPod worked like the Apple TV,
where there is a small cache for select media. Everything else would
have to be streamed whether it be from your home network, a Wi-Fi
hotspot, or a cellular service.
post #126 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoMan01 View Post

...Until some flash memory manufacturer offers a huge leap forward in flash memory capacity, you can forget about Apple offering an all-flash memory video iPod until at least 2010.

The more likely thing happening for the few (in my humble opinion!) are:

1) The iPod Shuffle will increase its flash memory to 2 GB.

2) The iPod nano will no longer be offered in 2 GB version, but we'll see a 4 GB low end, 8 GB midrange and 16 GB top end model.

3) The 5.5G iPod will be replaced by a new model derived from iPhone technology (e.g., full-screen 16:10 aspect ratio display and touchscreen controls), but with either 80 GB or 120 GB hard disk storage.

I can agree with most of that. The 16:10 screen is possibly a bit much though. It would be more expensive than the 4:3 model being used in the iPhone, and by other manufacturers as well.

Most content is still 4:3, so it may not have much of an advantage, except for movies, and not all of them would see much of an advantage either.

Right now, tv is the greatest selling video format. Perhaps later we will see a wider screen.
post #127 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncbill View Post

But there's still such a large difference in price between 3.5" and 2.5" drives.

I just bought 2 SATA drives - the 5400RPM, 2.5" 160GB drive cost 25% more than the 7200RPM, 3.5" 500GB model (both Seagates)

I expect 3.5" 500GB drives to be under $100 by the end of the year.

I'm not saying that we will see a great abandonment of 3.5" immediately.

But, we are seeing the move already. That will accelerate. The more machines use the drives, the lower the prices will go.

3.5" drives cost more than a bit more than 5.25 when they began to be used. Then drive manufacturers left the 5.25 size in a hurry.
post #128 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The chassis form factor is the same, but every cut-away or open-top view of a 15k drive I've ever seen showed platters that were markedly smaller than that of a 7200 drive. Even in a thumbnail view the platter size is smaller by a very noticable margin. It's often not as apparent with the 10k drives, but the platters are usually at least a little bit smaller.

Quarter of an inch.


Quote:
I'd say they really are 2.5" drives because the chassis width is the same as a notebook drive. I'm not sure what your hangup is about that. It wasn't meant for notebook use anyway. I have an extra tall (IIRC, 1.6" tall) 3.5" drive laying about, but I haven't heard of anyone trying to say it really isn't a 3.5" drive.

They are an odd form factor, and use much more power than other 2.5" drives. you don't see them much because of that. There's little advantage in using them.
post #129 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I can agree with most of that. The 16:10 screen is possibly a bit much though. It would be more expensive than the 4:3 model being used in the iPhone, and by other manufacturers as well.

Most content is still 4:3, so it may not have much of an advantage, except for movies, and not all of them would see much of an advantage either.

Right now, tv is the greatest selling video format. Perhaps later we will see a wider screen.

The iPhone's screen is 3:2, not 4:3.
post #130 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

The iPhone's screen is 3:2, not 4:3.

Sorry, you're right. I meant to type that, but somehow didn't. It's a compromise, which was the point I was making.
post #131 of 141
What if Apple released two touchscreen video iPod models at the same $349+ price tag; made one 32Gb of flash with longer battery life, and made one with 100Gb with hard drive, less battery life but way more storage. That way buyers have a choice which is more important to them longer battery life or storage.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #132 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

What if Apple released two touchscreen video iPod models at the same $349+ price tag; made one 32Gb of flash with longer battery life, and made one with 100Gb with hard drive, less battery life but way more storage. That way buyers have a choice which is more important to them longer battery life or storage.

There's no indication that 32 Gb of flash could be built into a $349 model. I think, going by todays pricing, that it would cost somewhere north of $800.
post #133 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There's no indication that 32 Gb of flash could be built into a $349 model. I think, going by todays pricing, that it would cost somewhere north of $800.

SanDisk did say, only a week ago, that they expect flash memory prices to dive another 50% this year. Currently, I believe flash mem prices hover around $10/GB, so that would mark a dive to $5/GB.

So an all-flash 32GB iPod may not be out of reach, if we give it a year. 8)

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #134 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post

SanDisk did say, only a week ago, that they expect flash memory prices to dive another 50% this year. Currently, I believe flash mem prices hover around $10/GB, so that would mark a dive to $5/GB.

So an all-flash 32GB iPod may not be out of reach, if we give it a year. 8)

.

The cost of the memory is only part of the cost of the device. Even at those projected costs, I think a 32GB iPod would still cost over $400
post #135 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post

SanDisk did say, only a week ago, that they expect flash memory prices to dive another 50% this year. Currently, I believe flash mem prices hover around $10/GB, so that would mark a dive to $5/GB.

So an all-flash 32GB iPod may not be out of reach, if we give it a year. 8)

.

Solid state drives are not the same as regular flash memory. They are much more expensive. I give it two years.
post #136 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Solid state drives are not the same as regular flash memory. They are much more expensive. I give it two years.

Not sure about that two years, but with Apple's mark up you could be right. I can't wait for the day flash takes over from these noisy, brittle, slow, temperamental spinning hard drives. I did say 349 plus though.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #137 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Not sure about that two years, but with Apple's mark up you could be right. I can't wait for the day flash takes over from these noisy, brittle, slow, temperamental spinning hard drives. I did say 349 plus though.

Yeah, you did! Like "plus" clothing sizes, it can mean a long way.
post #138 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yeah, you did! Like "plus" clothing sizes, it can mean a long way.

LOL, not what I mean is that the both devices would be the same price. Big storage or big battery life.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #139 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

LOL, not what I mean is that the both devices would be the same price. Big storage or big battery life.

There's no question that we'll get there.

For my old Atari 800, I paid $395 for a 64KB RAM board.

For my even older Intersystems DSP • 1, I paid $795 for an 8KB static RAM memory board. That was back in 1979, I think.

They were both a lot more money that it looks in todays dollars. At least twice as much, and possibly three!

So, a 32 GB SST drive at affordable prices is just around the corner by that timeline.
post #140 of 141
I don't really pay to much attention to the forums so excuse me if this has been brought up before, but do you really think Apple will release an iPod with touch screen before the end of the year? The iPhone hasn't even been released yet and to release a touch iPod before the end of the year would hurt iPhone sales for the '07 holidays. The college kids around here are looking at the iPhone as their next iPod purchase, so if they could buy the touch screen iPod without the cost of the phone or Cingular contract they would. I don't think we will see a touch screen iPod until at least early '08.
iBook 12", 1.2GHz, 1.25GB ram, 30GB HD, Combo

iMac 17", 2.0GHz, 1GB ram, 160GB HD, DL Super Drive, 300GB Firewire Enclosure, 17" Samsung 730B.
Reply
iBook 12", 1.2GHz, 1.25GB ram, 30GB HD, Combo

iMac 17", 2.0GHz, 1GB ram, 160GB HD, DL Super Drive, 300GB Firewire Enclosure, 17" Samsung 730B.
Reply
post #141 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by izack View Post

I don't really pay to much attention to the forums so excuse me if this has been brought up before, but do you really think Apple will release an iPod with touch screen before the end of the year? The iPhone hasn't even been released yet and to release a touch iPod before the end of the year would hurt iPhone sales for the '07 holidays. The college kids around here are looking at the iPhone as their next iPod purchase, so if they could buy the touch screen iPod without the cost of the phone or Cingular contract they would. I don't think we will see a touch screen iPod until at least early '08.

I don't see why not. But pundets have mentioned that Apple may wait until the iPhone is for sale so as not to steal its thunder.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple may ax next-gen HDD iPod in favor of all-flash models