or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Next-gen video iPod to employ 16GB of NAND flash - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Next-gen video iPod to employ 16GB of NAND flash - report - Page 2

post #41 of 73
Maybe they're going to combine a smaller-storage video ipod with an iTunes rental service that doesn't allow you to keep your videos for ay length of time anyway.
post #42 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Remember that when they introduced the nano and cancelled the mini, they kept the same prices but lowered the amount of storage space.

Yeah, I mentioned that before, but people ignored it. The truth is too difficult to read for memory junkies.
post #43 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw View Post

This may suit you, but many of us do want to carry our entire music collection in our pockets. There is nothing more frustrating than having the urge to hear a particular track and finding you don't have it with you.

Granted, this may not be an issue for US citizens who don't get many holidays, but when I'm on holiday in Greece for 2 or 3 weeks, twice a year, I want my complete music collection with me, not edited highlights.

Well then, this isn't for you. Most people don't have a big collection. It's fine for them. If it weren't, then 2,4,6, and 8 GB players wouldn't be so popular.

It's also a bad assumption to think that Apple will only have a 16GB SSD player. It's not likely they will remove a large HHD model from the lineup.

Also, why anyone would want to carry all of their movies around on this thing is beyond me. Once you watch a movie, or Tv show, you remove it. It's not like listening to music.
post #44 of 73
I don't give a damn if it has flash or HD I just need a decent screen size, if those rumours were true and we just got the current one made stubbier and slimmer with the same screen size that'd be complete bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #45 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Remember that when they introduced the nano and cancelled the mini, they kept the same prices but lowered the amount of storage space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yeah, I mentioned that before, but people ignored it. The truth is too difficult to read for memory junkies.

Not trying to belabor the point but when they did the mini/nano transition the top mini model had a 6GB capacity and the new top nano model was 4GB, a drop of only 2GB. This in a player that only plays music, not displays pictures and video also.

If, if, they were to go from the top end iPod capacity of 80GB down to a new top end capacity of 16GB, that would be a much more dramatic drop in capacity than the nano scenario.
post #46 of 73
I think it is useful to know the price of flash that Apple pays when considering what they should or will do with the next gen iPod.

In a recent teardown Isupply estimates that the cost of 8 GB of flash for Apple is $48. If that's the case, the flash alone in a 32 GB model will cost $200. 64 GB obviously $400. So I really don't see any chance that there's anything above 32 GB, unless Apple decides to sell all you crazies with 500 DVDs to put on there an iPod for $999.

Also according to that report, the core phone functions of the iPhone cost about $15 - pretty tiny. So removing that's not going to help make the iPod better/cheaper.
post #47 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by opuscroakus View Post

Not trying to belabor the point but when they did the mini/nano transition the top mini model had a 6GB capacity and the new top nano model was 4GB, a drop of only 2GB. This in a player that only plays music, not displays pictures and video also.

If, if, they were to go from the top end iPod capacity of 80GB down to a new top end capacity of 16GB, that would be a much more dramatic drop in capacity than the nano scenario.

Not to belabor the point, but I also said that it's highly doubtful that Apple would discontinue the 80GB model, and might even keep the 30 GB one, or bump it to 40GB.

They aren't stupid. There is no way that they would discontinue models with that much more memory.

If it were 20GB, then I could see it happening.
post #48 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

I think it is useful to know the price of flash that Apple pays when considering what they should or will do with the next gen iPod.

In a recent teardown Isupply estimates that the cost of 8 GB of flash for Apple is $48. If that's the case, the flash alone in a 32 GB model will cost $200. 64 GB obviously $400. So I really don't see any chance that there's anything above 32 GB, unless Apple decides to sell all you crazies with 500 DVDs to put on there an iPod for $999.

Also according to that report, the core phone functions of the iPhone cost about $15 - pretty tiny. So removing that's not going to help make the iPod better/cheaper.

The functions of the phone cost more than that. The word "core" is worthless. There are other functions that are needed as well.
post #49 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The functions of the phone cost more than that. The word "core" is worthless. There are other functions that are needed as well.

I'm sorry to have used such a worthless word.

Feel free to suggest where I was wrong. The breakdown of the iPhone components pretty much listed everything. The big numbers were for the screen, the flash the GPU and the CPU. Together those 4 amounted to well over half of the $240 hardware cost of the 8 GB version.

So if you're so positive that the core phone features which can be stripped out, leaving only the screen, CPU, GPU, RAM, wifi module and battery, cost more than the professionals suggest, lets hear why. Because at $240, you don't have a heck of a lot of room to play with if you plan to quadruple the $48 cost of RAM to 32 GB on an iPod eh?
post #50 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

I'm sorry to have used such a worthless word.

Feel free to suggest where I was wrong. The breakdown of the iPhone components pretty much listed everything. The big numbers were for the screen, the flash the GPU and the CPU. Together those 4 amounted to well over half of the $240 hardware cost of the 8 GB version.

So if you're so positive that the core phone features which can be stripped out, leaving only the screen, CPU, GPU, RAM, wifi module and battery, cost more than the professionals suggest, lets hear why. Because at $240, you don't have a heck of a lot of room to play with if you plan to quadruple the $48 cost of RAM to 32 GB on an iPod eh?

The reason why I said that the word "core" is worthless for a determination of the phones "phone" functions, is the very reason why they used it.

It doesn't accommodate all of the phone functions, that's why they said "core". When you add other parts of the phone that are required for the functionality that Apple has in the phone functions, then the cost rises.

The difficulty arises because some of the other parts also have critical phone functions, and in some cases Apple has used higher spec parts so as to make the phone function more smoothly, or to give it the features that make it what it is.

An example, the main cpu, is the ARM1176JZF. It's believed to be a part that runs upwards of 600MHz. The snappy interface of the phone depends on that. Apple could have used a lower spec part. How do you separate out the extra cost?

The same thing can be said for other parts. Apple has a vector float coprocessor. They didn't need one, but it helps with WiFi download speeds, maps, etc. How do you not count part of the cost of that?

The phone is too complex, and the functions too integrated to easily say that just $15 is allocated to phone functions.

If they were going to make an iPod of this, they could use lower spec parts, and eliminate some of them entirely.

Understand what I'm saying?
post #51 of 73
This is clearly nothing but a stupid rumor.
post #52 of 73
But what if you could sync your iTunes Media via a Refreshed .Mac service?? It is apparently on the cards for introduction at todays event, maybe it will be more media orientated?!

You could leave the house with 16Gb of good quality content and then update your playlist at a WiFi Hotspot and continue on your journey with a new batch of stuff to watch/listen to.

Even if Apple didn't provide that solution, someone would probably figure out a way to do it. Just wrap it up in a nice GUI and sell it for $10/$20
5-8" MultiTouch Mini Tablet would go down a treat if you're reading!
Reply
5-8" MultiTouch Mini Tablet would go down a treat if you're reading!
Reply
post #53 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Can you seriously live without your computer for 2-3 weeks? I'm not sure about those of you in Europe, but as an American, if I'm going on an extended vacation, I'm going to have my MacBook Pro along.

m


You make it sound like you speak for all Americans, yet a large portion of the population could not shell out $2000 for a Macbook Pro

Could you imagine a place where people didn't have computers??? Oh yea.. it's the majority of the world.

Sppooooiiillled.
-Josh
Reply
-Josh
Reply
post #54 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan1 View Post

Then again, 16 GB on a Nano is a different story....

This is my guess.
post #55 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

An example, the main cpu, is the ARM1176JZF. It's believed to be a part that runs upwards of 600MHz. The snappy interface of the phone depends on that. Apple could have used a lower spec part. How do you separate out the extra cost?

And what part of the PHONE uses that feature? Oh yeah - the coverflow feature. iPod will need that.

Quote:
The same thing can be said for other parts. Apple has a vector float coprocessor. They didn't need one, but it helps with WiFi download speeds, maps, etc. How do you not count part of the cost of that?

Again, wifi download speeds. If the iPod is going to have wifi, which I personally think it will, it's going to need that part. Why have such a nice screen if you can't use it to browse the web?

Quote:
The phone is too complex, and the functions too integrated to easily say that just $15 is allocated to phone functions.

If they were going to make an iPod of this, they could use lower spec parts, and eliminate some of them entirely.

Understand what I'm saying?

I don't see anything that can be eliminated to add even a single 8 GB chunk without going over the iPhone's BOM.
post #56 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dazabrit View Post

But what if you could sync your iTunes Media via a Refreshed .Mac service??

Good luck fighting the lawsuits. This is one of the features of the original mp3.com that got them sued into oblivion.

The copyright lawyers would treat this sharing service as a broadcast, and demand additional royalties. Will you pay them? I won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

In a recent teardown Isupply estimates that the cost of 8 GB of flash for Apple is $48. If that's the case, the flash alone in a 32 GB model will cost $200. 64 GB obviously $400. So I really don't see any chance that there's anything above 32 GB, unless Apple decides to sell all you crazies with 500 DVDs to put on there an iPod for $999.

Also according to that report, the core phone functions of the iPhone cost about $15 - pretty tiny. So removing that's not going to help make the iPod better/cheaper.

iSuppli routinely under-estimates parts cost. There hasn't been an Apple product released that they don't allege a 50%+ profit margin, but Apple reports margins in the range of 25-30% on their financial reports.

So you have to conclude that either Apple has been engaging in massive SEC violations for decades, and has gotten away without even an investigation, or iSuppli isn't very accurate.

I say the latter. Go look at their report. They consider the total software cost to be only $16 - and most of that is royalties to third parties. They claim the operating system only costs $7. See also Daring Fireball's commentary on the same subject.
post #57 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

the Far Eastern rumor publication claims the "new iPod video" will use NAND flash as the "major storage media," offering twice as much capacity as Apple's high-end iPhone handset.

"Major storage media", that's a very odd comment. It sounds like either there are two versions where the major version is flash based, and the minor version is HD based. Or the major version is 16GB, and the more expensive models are 32GB or 64GB or something. I refuse to think that there will be a 16GB major flash storage and a secondary harddrive in the same device.

"Major storage media"... very strange.,,
post #58 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by orple View Post

You make it sound like you speak for all Americans, yet a large portion of the population could not shell out $2000 for a Macbook Pro

Could you imagine a place where people didn't have computers??? Oh yea.. it's the majority of the world.

Sppooooiiillled.

I realize it sounds a bit strange when taken out of context like that, but if we are already talking about multi-gig iPods and extended 2-3 week vacations then that alone pretty much excludes the less fortunate masses of the world who have no computer. In a discussion like this, I don't see how the concept of toting around a notebook is so outrageous.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #59 of 73
One of the main points in this rumour is the authors contend the demise of HD based iPods. They certainly contend there will not be any new models that are HD based.

This is a classic example of someone taking a little bit of information and applying ridiculous extrapolations to it.

Flash isn't a viable replacement for HD's yet, but they seem to ignore this reality. Instead, they imply that for forthcoming iPods, 16gb will be the largest capacity - not because that is an adequately large capacity but because that is as much as they think the consumer would be prepared to wear, price wise.

I have a 15gb 3rd gen. iPod. Where would the incentive be for me and others like me to buy something with just 16gb? There isn't any. The logic of some of the posters here is just as tortuously ludicrous as that of the original rumour mongers.

Just because they personally have a small music library or think they could live with just 16gb and be bothered to swap stuff off and on it is no reason to ignore the fundamental silliness underlying this rumour.

Having to micro manage your iPods contents an a regular basis is getting away from one of the big attractions of the iPod in the first place. It is a retrogressive step and so uncool. How much of what Apple does is retrogressive or uncool? Exactly!

The total number of iPods sold with capacities of 15gb or greater would be how many do you think? A lot. People who have bought these are simply not going to be interested in downgrading.

Apple will only be able to extract more money from the pockets of all these people by offering something better and more compelling than what they already have. Something they will want to upgrade to.

Not much less than even larger HD capacities, wide touch screen with an iPhone style interface is likely to do that IMO
post #60 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I realize it sounds a bit strange when taken out of context like that, but if we are already talking about multi-gig iPods and extended 2-3 week vacations then that alone pretty much excludes the less fortunate masses of the world who have no computer. In a discussion like this, I don't see how the concept of toting around a notebook is so outrageous.

I took a Powerbook G4 on holiday in January. It was useful, but a pain. For a start, you are advised to take such valuables as cabin baggage, which can be a nuisance with the ever worsening security checks.

I took mine as checked-in baggage for this reason. When I got back I noticed there were signs of attempted tampering and forced entry around the lock and catches of the suitcase it was in. This rather confirms my suspicion that those who x-ray and inspect checked in baggage are possibly not as 'conscientious' as we would all like. Luckily it was a high quality hard shell suitcase and they didn't succeed.

I won't be tempted to take a laptop on vacation again.
post #61 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

"Major storage media", that's a very odd comment. It sounds like either there are two versions where the major version is flash based, and the minor version is HD based. Or the major version is 16GB, and the more expensive models are 32GB or 64GB or something. I refuse to think that there will be a 16GB major flash storage and a secondary harddrive in the same device.

"Major storage media"... very strange.,,

Perhaps they use that term because the HDD-based iPods do have a small amount of flash memory in addition to the hard drive.
post #62 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

"Major storage media", that's a very odd comment. It sounds like either there are two versions where the major version is flash based, and the minor version is HD based. Or the major version is 16GB, and the more expensive models are 32GB or 64GB or something. I refuse to think that there will be a 16GB major flash storage and a secondary harddrive in the same device.

"Major storage media"... very strange.,,

Could simply be referring to the fact that the iPhone (and probably the new iPod) will run OSX and thus needs RAM.
post #63 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

And what part of the PHONE uses that feature? Oh yeah - the coverflow feature. iPod will need that.

As I mentioned, if much more than the coverflow features. The keyboard word recognition required a fast processor and vector unit.

Quote:
Again, wifi download speeds. If the iPod is going to have wifi, which I personally think it will, it's going to need that part. Why have such a nice screen if you can't use it to browse the web?

I doubt very much if any iPod we will soon see will do that.

Quote:
I don't see anything that can be eliminated to add even a single 8 GB chunk without going over the iPhone's BOM.

Because the various parts in the phone are so integrated, unless Apple lowers specs, and eliminates the vector unit and WiFi, for example, which they could do for an iPod, then no, I don't either.
post #64 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Having to micro manage your iPods contents an a regular basis is getting away from one of the big attractions of the iPod in the first place. It is a retrogressive step and so uncool. How much of what Apple does is retrogressive or uncool?

Agreed. My DAP history has been the following:

64MB
128MB
4GB
30GB

I have loved all my DAPs but the most convenient has without a doubt been my iPod Photo 30GB. I have been able drag over every single song I want to the device and even use it as backup and for transferring large files between my computers.

But the true beauty in the iPod Photo was not being forced to spend 1-20 minutes everyday choosing an deleting the songs I want to listen to that particular day. That get pretty tiresome, especially if you are in a rush and don't get the time to select your desired song right before you step out the door. With 30GB I have been able to use the iPod several days without syncing it with my computer since I have had more than enough songs.

I also travel a lot and don't want to drag my laptop with me everywhere I go, but I do like having all my music with me. Further more I use my iPod as a jukebox. Once you big you never go back. My insurance company has compensate me for my broken iPod Photo and now I'm ready to buy what ever 30GB+ DAP apple will throw at me.
post #65 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeboy87 View Post

But the true beauty in the iPod Photo was not being forced to spend 1-20 minutes everyday choosing an deleting the songs I want to listen to that particular day. That get pretty tiresome, especially if you are in a rush and don't get the time to select your desired song right before you step out the door. With 30GB I have been able to use the iPod several days without syncing it with my computer since I have had more than enough songs.

I spend almost no time managing the songs on my nano. I have smart playlists that randomly replace the songs that have been played with new songs. My 1GB nano lasts long enough to play without repeat between complete charges, and My 4GB lasts longer.
post #66 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I spend almost no time managing the songs on my nano. I have smart playlists that randomly replace the songs that have been played with new songs. My 1GB nano lasts long enough to play without repeat between complete charges, and My 4GB lasts longer.

Except Apple is known for making things as simple as possible for even the most basic user. Smart Playlists are by no means difficult to implement, but you and I know both know someone who cannot for the life of them efficiently manage their music. Not everyone uses smart playlists to their best advantage.

That's where Apple steps in. Look at Windows. Anything you can do on a Mac, you can do on a PC, but Macs make it easier. Likewise, it's possible to load you iPod in a way that you have everything you want but is that easy for everyone?

I have a 1GB shuffle that I load through smart playlists and even that is a pain. Give me 60GB+ or give me death.
post #67 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChipT View Post

Except Apple is known for making things as simple as possible for even the most basic user. Smart Playlists are by no means difficult to implement, but you and I know both know someone who cannot for the life of them efficiently manage their music. Not everyone uses smart playlists to their best advantage.

That's where Apple steps in. Look at Windows. Anything you can do on a Mac, you can do on a PC, but Macs make it easier. Likewise, it's possible to load you iPod in a way that you have everything you want but is that easy for everyone?

I have a 1GB shuffle that I load through smart playlists and even that is a pain. Give me 60GB+ or give me death.

Your statements suggest that things really aren't as simple as possible, despite your first line. Apple could have offered Autofill for the nanos but haven't. That would have been the simplest.
post #68 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I spend almost no time managing the songs on my nano. I have smart playlists that randomly replace the songs that have been played with new songs. My 1GB nano lasts long enough to play without repeat between complete charges, and My 4GB lasts longer.

Smart playlist are useful but at the sametime they can't help you with the fundamental, which is choosing which 50 songs of the 2000 equally spectacular songs to sync. That's a problem iTune's smart playlist can't solve. That's like telling a mother which two of her 5 children to save if she was forced to give away three of them.
post #69 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I took a Powerbook G4 on holiday in January. It was useful, but a pain. For a start, you are advised to take such valuables as cabin baggage, which can be a nuisance with the ever worsening security checks.

I took mine as checked-in baggage for this reason. When I got back I noticed there were signs of attempted tampering and forced entry around the lock and catches of the suitcase it was in. This rather confirms my suspicion that those who x-ray and inspect checked in baggage are possibly not as 'conscientious' as we would all like. Luckily it was a high quality hard shell suitcase and they didn't succeed.

I won't be tempted to take a laptop on vacation again.

That's the reason they always tell you to not put valuables (like computers and cameras) in checked baggage. It is well known that baggage handlers are thieves. If the X-ray machine shows something valuable in the bag, they will try to steal it.

I've first-hand experience with getting bags that have been slashed open by large knives by thieves interested in stealing souvenirs.

As for the "ever worsening security checks", carrying a laptop is no big deal. They require the laptop to be X-rayed separately from the rest of your baggage, but that's about it. So you take it out of your bag for a few minutes and put it back again. This is much less inconvenient than having to empty your pockets and remove pieces of clothing.
post #70 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

That's the reason they always tell you to not put valuables (like computers and cameras) in checked baggage. It is well known that baggage handlers are thieves. If the X-ray machine shows something valuable in the bag, they will try to steal it.

I've first-hand experience with getting bags that have been slashed open by large knives by thieves interested in stealing souvenirs.

As for the "ever worsening security checks", carrying a laptop is no big deal. They require the laptop to be X-rayed separately from the rest of your baggage, but that's about it. So you take it out of your bag for a few minutes and put it back again. This is much less inconvenient than having to empty your pockets and remove pieces of clothing.

I brought a notebook as a carry-on without any trouble. I don't like that TSA (Totally Stupid & Asinine) has to scan it separately, but it's only half a minute more time taken. I just don't see any iPod or iPhone being a substitute for a notebook for a multi-day trip. That's why I have a notebook, so I can have a computer with me.
post #71 of 73
[QUOTE=shamino;1123766]That's the reason they always tell you to not put valuables (like computers and cameras) in checked baggage. It is well known that baggage handlers are thieves. If the X-ray machine shows something valuable in the bag, they will try to steal it.

I've first-hand experience with getting bags that have been slashed open by large knives by thieves interested in stealing souvenirs.

As for the "ever worsening security checks", carrying a laptop is no big deal. They require the laptop to be X-rayed separately from the rest of your baggage, but that's about it. So you take it out of your bag for a few minutes and put it back again. This is much less inconvenient than having to empty your pockets and remove pieces of clothing.[/QUOTE

Absolutely! But I had some camera equipment in my hand luggage that was more valuable than the Powerbook so I made the choice to check in the Laptop. With small children in tow, any extra hassle multiplies. All of this just highlights to me how potentially wonderful an iPhone could be. It is just a pity Apples marketing of it is so misguided. I hope when they release it in Europe that they find they are unable to pursue their US model and just sell it like any other product they make.
post #72 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Some people seem to think that their iPod should hold everything they own. As a book reader, I don't carry around a library , I carry around a book. 16 gig will hold a bunch of TV shows, a couple of full length movies and thousands of songs.


Your analogy with books and libraries is misconceived. I rarely read books more than once so don't need to carry them all around with me. Songs I listen to hundreds of times. I suspect this is the same for most people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I think you could do a little planning and sync up what you are likely to need for the next week or so and leave the full collection on your computer.

This is what I had to do before the iPod, when I used to take my Discman and a selection of cds on holiday. Inevitably there were many times when the cd I wanted to listen to was on the shelf at home. This is why I bought an iPod, so that wether I was on my daily commute or on holiday I could listen to exactly what I was in the mood to listen to

Incidentally here in the UK package holidays are cheap and a 2/3 week holiday is a 'regular' holiday taken once or twice a year by most working people. An 'extended' holiday would be a month or more and is much less common.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

How many times are you going to watch the same movie on your iPod?

I only have music on my iPod.
post #73 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw View Post

Your analogy with books and libraries is misconceived. I rarely read books more than once so don't need to carry them all around with me. Songs I listen to hundreds of times. I suspect this is the same for most people.

That was more of a reference to movies which take up a lot of storage space and usually don't get watched more than once. I agree with you on music but songs don't require so much storage space. Even so, I tend to listen to a short list of albums for a month or two then shelve them for something else.

I guess my main point is that if I really want to hear a particular track, I can usually wait until I return home. To be so obsessive about a song that I become frustrated because I can't hear it immediately seems a bit extreme, but maybe it is just me.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Next-gen video iPod to employ 16GB of NAND flash - report