or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Death of iPod Classic - Replaced by a 160GB HDD iPod Touch?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Death of iPod Classic - Replaced by a 160GB HDD iPod Touch?

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
Hi,

My crystal ball told me that Steve Jobs will announce the death of iPod Classic on next Tuesday.



So, what possible replacement for 2008-2009?

- 16GB iPod Touch ($299)
- 32GB iPod Touch ($399)
- 160GB iPod Touch, special HDD version ($499)
Transitional product just to kill the iPod Classic



and for 2009-2010?

100% flash memory

- 32GB iPod Touch ($299)
- 64GB iPod Touch ($399)
- 120GB iPod Touch ($499)


Just my thought. And you, what's your opinion?

Chilli
post #2 of 41
Quote:

From a previous AppleInsider article:

During his quarterly financial results call, Apple's chief financial officer Peter Oppenheimer revealed that the company will make a key "product transition" that cuts back on its profit margins to help shut out rivals.

A frequent point of discussion during the hour-long call, the mystery transition will drop Apple's gross margins from 34.8 percent in the spring quarter to just 31.5 percent in the July-to-September window in which the update takes place, ultimately settling at about 30 percent during Apple's fiscal 2009.

With the above in mind, Apple just might cut the iPod Classic (HDD based system) and increase the capacity of the iPod Touch, taking the (margin) hit on the current cost of flash memory.

Meaning, no interim HDD model of the iPod Touch…

I would also like to believe that Apple will use the same margin-cutting/profit-cutting method to introduce a Mac OS X tablet aimed at the consumer market. Not a replacement for either the MacBook or the MacBook Pro, but a basic MID (Mobile Internet Device) for the masses, done with the usual Apple flair & panache…
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #3 of 41
I don't really see the need for a OS X-based tablet in between the iPod Touch and the Macbook. It would be an almost useless gadget for most people considering how well the iPod Touch does internet- and if you need a real computer over an internet browsing device and/or music/video player, then the MacBook is small enough to be easily portable and large enough to be practical, so it suits you just fine.

That said, I would very much like to see higher capacity versions of the iPod Touch , to distinguish it a little more from the iPhone.
post #4 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilli View Post

Hi,

My crystal ball told me that Steve Jobs will announce the death of iPod Classic on next Tuesday.



So, what possible replacement for 2008-2009?

- 16GB iPod Touch ($299)
- 32GB iPod Touch ($399)
- 160GB iPod Touch, special HDD version ($499)
Transitional product just to kill the iPod Classic



and for 2009-2010?

100% flash memory

- 32GB iPod Touch ($299)
- 64GB iPod Touch ($399)
- 120GB iPod Touch ($499)


Just my thought. And you, what's your opinion?

Chilli

If anything, it will be a large capacity SSD based ipod with a clickwheel. I mean....along with the new ipod touches and shuffles and nanos.
post #5 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by John French View Post

I don't really see the need for a OS X-based tablet in between the iPod Touch and the Macbook. It would be an almost useless gadget for most people considering how well the iPod Touch does internet- and if you need a real computer over an internet browsing device and/or music/video player, then the MacBook is small enough to be easily portable and large enough to be practical, so it suits you just fine.

That said, I would very much like to see higher capacity versions of the iPod Touch , to distinguish it a little more from the iPhone.

I can DEFINITELY see the need for a Mac OS X tablet! I have used the iPhone, and I cannot stand surfing the web or handling email on it, maybe it is my old eyes and fat fingers, but I know I am not alone in this

And when you break it down, the vast majority of average computer users really only use their computers for two specific tasks; surfing the Internet & managing email. Throw in the consumer packages like iLife & iWork, a bit of iChat, maybe a little World of Warcraft; and you pretty much cover most of what many consumers might do on their computers.

Me, I believe that multi-touch is the future of computer user interfaces. Others may say that tablets will go nowhere, but the same was said of the ubiquitous mouse back in the 80's when the original Mac first came out

Personally, my computer needs would be served by a combination of Apple products.

Give me an iPhone nano for cell calls, text messages (even though I don't do text messaging, many others do), snapping photos, playing music & videos, and a contacts list/address book (for cell #s). No WiFi, no Internet; just a cell that plays music/videos & takes pictures.

Give me the Mac OS X tablet, as outlined above. Make the screen size about two-thirds of the difference between the (regular) iPhone & the current MacBook. The overall dimensions would be larger than a standard DVD case, yet smaller than a standard sheet of notebook paper. This would be an Atom (dual core, thank you) powered device. Perfect for average usage on the go, on the toilet, or sitting at the couch watching tv.It would also interface with an improved DVR capable AppleTV as a remote control.

An improved AppleTV, with DVR functionality. And please Apple, let us rent for more than 24 hours! I would pay an extra dollar per rental to have a movie available over the weekend!

For when I want to do some REAL computer work, there is the old standby, the iMac. For me, that would mainly be for Photoshop, SketchUp & occasional modo work. Some may use a Mac Pro for larger tasks, but it may be overkill for most.

And finally, if I can have the option of using the tablet as a multi-touch interface for the iMac (Mac Pro) when I want, all the better

But that's just me and my wants!
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #6 of 41
Sure there is going to be one - quite likely it would be a replacement for the MacBook Air in my opinion. Combined with the other morphing panel patent, it may be that they are planning a dual display / keyboard sort of functionality. this will make it much thinner - who knows this may also mean they can add an optical drive to it built in

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

I can DEFINITELY see the need for a Mac OS X tablet! I have used the iPhone, and I cannot stand surfing the web or handling email on it, maybe it is my old eyes and fat fingers, but I know I am not alone in this

And when you break it down, the vast majority of average computer users really only use their computers for two specific tasks; surfing the Internet & managing email. Throw in the consumer packages like iLife & iWork, a bit of iChat, maybe a little World of Warcraft; and you pretty much cover most of what many consumers might do on their computers.

Me, I believe that multi-touch is the future of computer user interfaces. Others may say that tablets will go nowhere, but the same was said of the ubiquitous mouse back in the 80's when the original Mac first came out

Personally, my computer needs would be served by a combination of Apple products.

Give me an iPhone nano for cell calls, text messages (even though I don't do text messaging, many others do), snapping photos, playing music & videos, and a contacts list/address book (for cell #s). No WiFi, no Internet; just a cell that plays music/videos & takes pictures.

Give me the Mac OS X tablet, as outlined above. Make the screen size about two-thirds of the difference between the (regular) iPhone & the current MacBook. The overall dimensions would be larger than a standard DVD case, yet smaller than a standard sheet of notebook paper. This would be an Atom (dual core, thank you) powered device. Perfect for average usage on the go, on the toilet, or sitting at the couch watching tv.It would also interface with an improved DVR capable AppleTV as a remote control.

An improved AppleTV, with DVR functionality. And please Apple, let us rent for more than 24 hours! I would pay an extra dollar per rental to have a movie available over the weekend!

For when I want to do some REAL computer work, there is the old standby, the iMac. For me, that would mainly be for Photoshop, SketchUp & occasional modo work. Some may use a Mac Pro for larger tasks, but it may be overkill for most.

And finally, if I can have the option of using the tablet as a multi-touch interface for the iMac (Mac Pro) when I want, all the better

But that's just me and my wants!
post #7 of 41
[QUOTE=Chilli;1302006]Hi,

My crystal ball told me that Steve Jobs will announce the death of iPod Classic on next Tuesday.
[\\quote]
I'm not convinced that classic has to die, the could simply add a larger harddrive and make many happy. The biggest problem there is that I have seen any new potential drives in the industry rags of late.

[quote]


So, what possible replacement for 2008-2009?

- 16GB iPod Touch ($299)
- 32GB iPod Touch ($399)
[\\quote]
This is where I see your first big mistake, that being the flash sizes for the prices you mention. I'd be surprised if Apple is paying more than $25 for 16GB flash chips these days especially in the volume Apple can dangle before a vendor. So I'd expect a cheap Touch for around $175 in a 16GB variant with a 32 GB $50 - $75 more. What will get us back up to the big $$$$$ will be a Touch using the new premium 32GB flash to produce a 64 GB Touch from two devices. What should be noted here is that with the right integration Apple might find itself with enough room for three flash devices on the new Touches mother board. What this means is that we might not be stuck with storage sizes held to the increments one or two chips provide. This 48 or 96 GB flash devices become possible.
[quote]
- 160GB iPod Touch, special HDD version ($499)
Transitional product just to kill the iPod Classic

[\\quote]
I'm not one to dismiss a magnetic hard drive in a Touch, I just don't see it as a replacement for a Classic. The primary concern, for me any ways, is that I want the reliability of flash.
[quote]

and for 2009-2010?

100% flash memory

- 32GB iPod Touch ($299)
- 64GB iPod Touch ($399)
- 120GB iPod Touch ($499)

[\\quote]
I'm not sure what incentive there is for Apple to wait for the coming year when the flash chips to implement 32 & 64GB Touches are already on the market from more than one vendor. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to hear about an iPhone 3G upgrade before Christmas to 32GB.
Quote:
Just my thought. And you, what's your opinion?

Chilli

Well some opinion in line above. Obviously Apple needs to adapt it's product line to what it thinks the market conditions will be like. This is where all the talk about lower cost Touches come from. That won't keep Apple out of the high end though this a Touch offering up the latest flash technology. It is my hope that the high end machine offers up far more uniqueness than just the latest flash tech though. What this amounts to is Apple offering the user far more choice in Touch based devices.

As to Nano frankly not even remotely interested.

I'm still pulling for a iPod Touch Maxi. Mainly so that it has an HD aspect ratio or better for videos and an overall slightly larger sceen. Of course an even slightly larger device means more room for flash, battery and other stuff.

When it comes right down to it I see a market for a number of Touch based devices and frankly I hope Apple has a clue here. Maybe they won't be ready in Sept but I'd be very disappointed in Apple if they don't have more different Touch based devices in the works. By the way I'm not talking about micro Mac tablets which would be stupid but rather devices that fit easily into one hand.

Oh let me clear up one thing I don't think that a Mac tablet would be stupid. It's just an issue of size where it becomes impractcle to use Mac software on very small devices. From what I can see a Mac tablet would need to be steno size or bigger to make the use of a wide array of existing software.

Finally a few other things I'd like to see in at least some of the new Touch devices:

1.
BluTooth. I can't repeat this enough, further Apple needs to get cracking on supporting the common profiles sonthat we can make use of some of the cool stuff out there.

2.
Support for the same headset jack as the iPhone this to allow voice recording, VoIP and other neat uses. To me this seems like a no brainer. The alternative of course is an analog in jack or a built in microphone.

3.
Physical controls for volume and mute! Allied would be one or more application defined push buttons. Mainly because the touch screen sucks for camera control an programmable buttons certainly would be handy for other apps.

The three above seem to have strong community support. The items below seem to get a mixed reaction.

4.
A host USB port

5.
More physical sensors especially temperature.

6.
A better WiFi antenna.

7.
Replacable battery.

8.
HMDI outputs through the dock connector. What I ideally want to see is an iPod totally optimized for video in the same way that the current unit is optimized for music. This is not for the low end.

9.
Battery life! More is always better but I'm hoping that PA Semi can have a massive impact here.

10.
More processing power. A high end device needs more of every thing. That is more RAM, processing speed, integrated video acceleration, graphics and WiFi. The goal should be a unit twice as fast with the same battery life as today. Again I think PA Semi can deliver this via SoC technology. Ideally this would be on a Newton 2 like device, that is something physically bigger than the current Touch to deliver a bigger screen.


There you go - what do you think?


Dave
post #8 of 41
Putting a hard drive in the touch would kill the battery life, kill the interface speed, and kill the sleekness of the design.

The capacity would be wonderful- certainly something made for playing videos needs all the space it can get- but it's not happening. Maybe a high-capacity flash model, but that wouldn't be cheap even if Apple were willing to let it eat into their margins.
post #9 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

Putting a hard drive in the touch would kill the battery life, kill the interface speed, and kill the sleekness of the design.

The capacity would be wonderful- certainly something made for playing videos needs all the space it can get- but it's not happening. Maybe a high-capacity flash model, but that wouldn't be cheap even if Apple were willing to let it eat into their margins.

The way that flash memory has been dropping I suspect that Apple could easily double the capacity of the Flash based Touch iPods. That at the current price points. That really doesn't answer the need for video storage but it is a lot better than the current machines. Further doubling flash, in Touch, should make the vast majority of audio users happy.

You may very well be right about the disk drive and user interface responsiveness but there are ways to deal with that. Caching would be one. A hybrid approach might be heplful where the code and certain data make use of Flash and the media goes to disk.

The one thing I don't expect to see Apple do is to leave the high capacity users high and dry. That means there has to be at least one iPod on the market with the same or better storage than the current classic. Even then I suspect that Apple will alienate professional users if the click wheel disappears.

Nice thing is that this whole thread becomes history in 5 days.

Dave
post #10 of 41
I really like the idea of an iPhone Nano - the iPhone is such a cool device but there's too much guff on it. I only use my mobile for calls and text messages, so a stripped down iPhone that was more like an iPod with a microphone and speaker would be awesome.
post #11 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by John French View Post

I don't really see the need for a OS X-based tablet in between the iPod Touch and the Macbook. It would be an almost useless gadget for most people considering how well the iPod Touch does internet- and if you need a real computer over an internet browsing device and/or music/video player, then the MacBook is small enough to be easily portable and large enough to be practical, so it suits you just fine.

That said, I would very much like to see higher capacity versions of the iPod Touch , to distinguish it a little more from the iPhone.

excactly! great point.
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #12 of 41
Apple won't kill the classic until there is a 160GB or greater replacement. Could be a touch-style device. Might not.

They won't kill the 160GB hard drive iPod until they can viably replace it with a 160GB flash model (or other storage type). They will not go down in maximum capacity (i.e. from 160GB maximum to 120GB maximum). Not now. Not ever.
post #13 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The way that flash memory has been dropping I suspect that Apple could easily double the capacity of the Flash based Touch iPods. That at the current price points. That really doesn't answer the need for video storage but it is a lot better than the current machines. Further doubling flash, in Touch, should make the vast majority of audio users happy.

You may very well be right about the disk drive and user interface responsiveness but there are ways to deal with that. Caching would be one. A hybrid approach might be heplful where the code and certain data make use of Flash and the media goes to disk.

The one thing I don't expect to see Apple do is to leave the high capacity users high and dry. That means there has to be at least one iPod on the market with the same or better storage than the current classic. Even then I suspect that Apple will alienate professional users if the click wheel disappears.

Nice thing is that this whole thread becomes history in 5 days.

Dave

You're right that Apple can't leave out the high capacity users. Either the classic stays, or there will be at least a 64GB touch. 128GB is possible, but I don't see Apple jumping that far without something in between for a while.
post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

You're right that Apple can't leave out the high capacity users. Either the classic stays, or there will be at least a 64GB touch. 128GB is possible, but I don't see Apple jumping that far without something in between for a while.

The best that I can see Apple doing right now is about 96GB in a Touch sized device. A device that wouldn't be cheap as it would have 3 Flash devices in it. That of course implies Apple achieving enough integration to allow for 3 flash ships on the Touches motherboard. Personally I think it would be worth their while to stretch Touch enough to assure 3 chip capacity and hopefully at the same time change the aspect ratio of the screen to be more suitable for Movies, and HDTV.

Less than 5 days to go.
post #15 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

You're right that Apple can't leave out the high capacity users. Either the classic stays, or there will be at least a 64GB touch. 128GB is possible, but I don't see Apple jumping that far without something in between for a while.

Even if there's a 64GB touch, Apple will not kill the Classic. Even if there's a 128GB iPod Touch, Apple will not kill the classic. They will not go down in maximum capacity. Not now, not ever.
post #16 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not now, not ever.

And many said the same about Apple using Intel chips
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #17 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Even if there's a 64GB touch, Apple will not kill the Classic. Even if there's a 128GB iPod Touch, Apple will not kill the classic. They will not go down in maximum capacity. Not now, not ever.

Amazing how someone with zero inside information and nothing but a bunch of ideas and conjecture can make such powerful statements. No one on this forum knows what Apple will do, and everytime someone says something absurd like "not now, not ever" they end up looking foolish when Apple does whatever it is.
post #18 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by John French View Post

I don't really see the need for a OS X-based tablet in between the iPod Touch and the Macbook. It would be an almost useless gadget for most people considering how well the iPod Touch does internet- and if you need a real computer over an internet browsing device and/or music/video player, then the MacBook is small enough to be easily portable and large enough to be practical, so it suits you just fine

I do, the iPod touch etc is too locked down, they need a device that gives you the freedom of a Mac, so you can use BT for anything, install anything, use a CLI without hacking the device.
post #19 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter View Post

Amazing how someone with zero inside information and nothing but a bunch of ideas and conjecture can make such powerful statements. No one on this forum knows what Apple will do, and everytime someone says something absurd like "not now, not ever" they end up looking foolish when Apple does whatever it is.

When has it ever been that Apple has reduced the maximum capacity of a device? I guess the transition from the Mini (6GB max) to the Nano (4GB max)... but then again there were always the full-size iPods for people who needed more room.

I'm not saying there will be anything new at 160GB. In fact I don't think there will be. I think the new announcement will be for new Touches, Nanos and possibly Shuffles.

But Apple won't EOL the only 160GB+ option. Maybe replace it with a thinner version and cancel the 80. Or make it a 160GB HDD Touch.
post #20 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

When has it ever been that Apple has reduced the maximum capacity of a device?

Past behavior is not a predictor of future behavior. It's that simple. You can make all the conjecture you want to, but you don't know anything about what Apple's plans are. And not knowing what their plans are, to make statements about what they definitely will or won't do is patently absurd.
post #21 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Apple won't kill the classic until there is a 160GB or greater replacement. Could be a touch-style device. Might not.

They won't kill the 160GB hard drive iPod until they can viably replace it with a 160GB flash model (or other storage type). They will not go down in maximum capacity (i.e. from 160GB maximum to 120GB maximum). Not now. Not ever.

i definitely agree. the capacity of the 160gb classic is a major selling point. would love the interface of the touch, but for now it's more attractive for me to be able to have my entire library with me. if 160gb becomes viable in flash in the near future then i will be strongly attracted to buy and i think there are many people like me
post #22 of 41
I wonder if this is the margin cutting product transition hinted at earlier? Solid state iPod throughout?
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #23 of 41
For starters. Why would Apple release a widescreen nano and not a widescreen classic?

Here are some possible price points/structure as I can see it.

2GB Shuffle - $50

4GB Nano - $100 (silver)

8GB Nano - $150 (multiple colors)

8GB iTouch - $200

120GB 3" Widescreen Classic - $250

16GB iTouch - $300

160GB 3" Widescreen Classic - $300

32GB iTouch - $400
post #24 of 41
A couple of comments from a different perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi View Post

For starters. Why would Apple release a widescreen nano and not a widescreen classic?

Here are some possible price points/structure as I can see it.

2GB Shuffle - $50

A 2GB MP3 player could be implemented for as little as $30 retail and still have all the cache of an Apple product. That would like be in a USB dongle form with an Apple twist. As it is Shuffles are a bit overpriced, but that can be controlled via good engineering. As always the most difficult part of such a device is yhe battery.
Quote:
4GB Nano - $100 (silver)

8GB Nano - $150 (multiple colors)

8GB iTouch - $200

I suspect the low capacity Touch & Nano will disappear. The problem is flash is dirt cheap now and the consumers know it. It is kinda hard to justify the price on these things when flash in these capacities sell to consumers for less than $25.

So Nano's in 8 & 16 GB for $125 & $175

Touch would start at 16 GB for $199
Quote:

120GB 3" Widescreen Classic - $250

16GB iTouch - $300

160GB 3" Widescreen Classic - $300

Obviously we disagree on the Touch but may have common ground on a classic replacement. I haven't seen much on new drive tech but for now let's say 160 GB is the best one can do. So we put that into a platform as a Classic replacement. This would however be a Touch based device with at least an HD aspect ratio wide screen. This means the new "Classic" would likely be a bit longer but would be far more optimal for video usage and might even fill the Newton 2 role.

The packaging on this device would be flexible to support versions built with flash.
Quote:
32GB iTouch - $400

Apple already makes a 32GB Touch that will likely drop down to around $200 if it has the same feature set. At or slightly below the $300 dollar mark I expect something in the 48 - 64 GB range. Here is the scoop on what I'm thinking.

Apple has stated that PASemi was purchased to design iPod chips, now that could be bull but let's say it is real. Why would Apple go to PA for iPod chips, the only answer is integration. If Apple can get enough tech integrated into a SoC then they may be able to fee up space for three flash devices. This means they can be more flexible in offering different Touch capacities and achieving economies. This something like a 48 GB iPod becomes possible with a number of chip combinations. Same deal here for a 96 GB device. Yeah three high capacity flash chips would be a lot for the current Touch but imagine Apple getting rid of 90% of the chips on the board.



Dave
post #25 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


So Nano's in 8 & 16 GB for $125 & $175

Touch would start at 16 GB for $199


Dave

not enough price difference between the 16 GB models.
post #26 of 41
So... Apple kill the Classic and alienate an exceptionally large proportion of its customers who do not want the expense or features of the iPod Touch?

I don't think so.
post #27 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiMac View Post

So... Apple kill the Classic and alienate an exceptionally large proportion of its customers who do not want the expense or features of the iPod Touch?

I don't think so.


If Apple were to introduce high capacity SSDs, i would like to see them in the MacBook Air! I am definitely a confirmed Classic 160GB user and have an iPhone 3G; my biggest gripe against the Touch and the iPhone are that they are useable as storage on the desktop-- ok, who wants a phone as a piece of data luggage?--but the ability to keep everything going on a useful mobil HD that doubles as an iPod with video capability is a true joy.
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
post #28 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

A couple of comments from a different perspective.


A 2GB MP3 player could be implemented for as little as $30 retail and still have all the cache of an Apple product. That would like be in a USB dongle form with an Apple twist. As it is Shuffles are a bit overpriced, but that can be controlled via good engineering. As always the most difficult part of such a device is yhe battery.

Apple already went that route with the 1st gen shuffle and I don't think they are going back. It's too big of a device. The new clip based shuffles are a lot smaller and much more handy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I suspect the low capacity Touch & Nano will disappear. The problem is flash is dirt cheap now and the consumers know it. It is kinda hard to justify the price on these things when flash in these capacities sell to consumers for less than $25.

This has never mattered much to Apple. Often times they sell products that are underpowered but over sexed, and people buy the product anyway because of its looks and the way it works, not because of its overall power/storage.
Plus $100 is the magic point in marketing. That is a price that people are willing to pay for a spur of the moment purchase. So a $100 4GB nano would sell like hotcakes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

So Nano's in 8 & 16 GB for $125 & $175

Touch would start at 16 GB for $199

I think you are giving way too much credit to Apple here on pricing. Remember the current 16GB touch sells for $400. I highly doubt they are going to drop it $200 in price when they can drop it $100 and have people still be happy. A 16GB nano for $250 might be possible though. In fact highly likely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Obviously we disagree on the Touch but may have common ground on a classic replacement. I haven't seen much on new drive tech but for now let's say 160 GB is the best one can do. So we put that into a platform as a Classic replacement. This would however be a Touch based device with at least an HD aspect ratio wide screen. This means the new "Classic" would likely be a bit longer but would be far more optimal for video usage and might even fill the Newton 2 role.

The packaging on this device would be flexible to support versions built with flash.

I think that is more wishful thinking on your part then actual reality. Apple is not going to pit the classic as direct competition against the touch by adding touchscreen to it. At most what we are going to see is something similar in design to the new 120GB zune. Something with a 3" screen instead of a 2.5" screen and just a slightly smaller clickwheel. No touch screen though. Remember a lot of classic users don't like and don't want a touch screen. Apple knows this.
We know Microsoft can create a 120GB zune with a 3" screen for $250, so Apple can do the same. Sadly, I really doubt it will have a larger screen. I think it will be the same classic with just a 120GB hard drive to replace the 80GB model and a price drop of $50 for the 160GB model.



Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Apple already makes a 32GB Touch that will likely drop down to around $200 if it has the same feature set. At or slightly below the $300 dollar mark I expect something in the 48 - 64 GB range. Here is the scoop on what I'm thinking.

I don't think you are going to see a higher capacity Touch at this event, at most just price drops.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Apple has stated that PASemi was purchased to design iPod chips, now that could be bull but let's say it is real. Why would Apple go to PA for iPod chips, the only answer is integration. If Apple can get enough tech integrated into a SoC then they may be able to fee up space for three flash devices. This means they can be more flexible in offering different Touch capacities and achieving economies. This something like a 48 GB iPod becomes possible with a number of chip combinations. Same deal here for a 96 GB device. Yeah three high capacity flash chips would be a lot for the current Touch but imagine Apple getting rid of 90% of the chips on the board.

Once again you are jumping too far ahead. Apple just bought this company, it's going to take them about a year to get all their ducks lined up in a row before we start seeing shipping Apple products that use these chipsets. Maybe this time next year, but certainly not tomorrow.
post #29 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Apple won't kill the classic until there is a 160GB or greater replacement. Could be a touch-style device. Might not.

They won't kill the 160GB hard drive iPod until they can viably replace it with a 160GB flash model (or other storage type). They will not go down in maximum capacity (i.e. from 160GB maximum to 120GB maximum). Not now. Not ever.

I am totally pwn3d.

Makes my 160GB Classic feel precious.
post #30 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Even if there's a 64GB touch, Apple will not kill the Classic. Even if there's a 128GB iPod Touch, Apple will not kill the classic. They will not go down in maximum capacity. Not now, not ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


But Apple won't EOL the only 160GB+ option. Maybe replace it with a thinner version and cancel the 80. Or make it a 160GB HDD Touch.


Remember what I said about looking foolish when you make absurd claims based on nothing but opinion? How's that feel now?

EDIT: Nevermind, you called yourself on it. Good form.
post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I am totally pwn3d.

Makes my 160GB Classic feel precious.

I missed my window of opportunity to get in here and 'revisit' your original post

But props for owning up to your mistake! Or was it a preemptive action?!?
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #32 of 41
The drop to 120GB is a good move IMO. The more capacity an ipod has, the longer it takes to fill that space, restore it and so on.

The problem with having ipods big enough to store all of a person's music, the more they feel they can simply store it on the ipod alone. Then it breaks and the music is either gone or has to be ripped from a huge CD collection again.

Next year, I can see the classic dying completely. No matter if HDD gets up to 320GB for the same price, it's simply not needed and they can offer a 32GB flash ipod for the same price.

I would rather see them reach 64GB next year and for the price to simply drop after that.

I wouldn't be surprised if itunes had been reporting back ipod space usage to Apple so that they could make this decision.

Assuming you spent 8 hours a day listening to music, even a 16GB ipod can store enough music that you could listen to it for 3 weeks and not hear the same song. After about 2 months, you'll be ready to hear something new anyway.
post #33 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The drop to 120GB is a good move IMO. The more capacity an ipod has, the longer it takes to fill that space, restore it and so on.

The problem with having ipods big enough to store all of a person's music, the more they feel they can simply store it on the ipod alone. Then it breaks and the music is either gone or has to be ripped from a huge CD collection again.

Next year, I can see the classic dying completely. No matter if HDD gets up to 320GB for the same price, it's simply not needed and they can offer a 32GB flash ipod for the same price.

I would rather see them reach 64GB next year and for the price to simply drop after that.

I wouldn't be surprised if itunes had been reporting back ipod space usage to Apple so that they could make this decision.

Assuming you spent 8 hours a day listening to music, even a 16GB ipod can store enough music that you could listen to it for 3 weeks and not hear the same song. After about 2 months, you'll be ready to hear something new anyway.

You sound like the people that were convinced a 256MB flash card was enough back when the iPod came out. Just choose the music you want to carry with you. Except that the purpose of the iPod Classic is to be able to take your ENTIRE music library with you. The concept of all your music in your pocket is what made the iPod so great. I loathe having to decide which music I will and won't listen to, especially on a long trip. You also totally discount that a lot of people have lossless music that takes up much, much more space than AAC or MP3. Looks like I am going to have to track down a 160GB Classic before they're gone.
post #34 of 41
The biggest advantage to a high-capacity (64GB+) iPod is the ability to hold movies and TV shows on it, but the iPod Classic has the weakest screen for that type of content.

As such, I do believe the HDD-based iPod will leave the lineup sooner rather then later. I imagine once the Touch can get to 64GB for about $349 is when the iPod Classic will drop. Yes, it will require some "storage discipline" on the part of owners, but in all seriousness, if you want to haul around scores of movies and TV shows, you should be looking at a Windows device like the Archos Media Players which sacrifice ease of transport for a form factor that best leverages heavy video content watching.
post #35 of 41
I also believe Apple will kill the HDD based Classic before its capacity can be matched (both size & price) by flash ram based products. This will be a thoughtful & educated decision, and will probably be the source of 'lower margins' from the earnings call. Apple is most likely taking the next step and plans on moving the entire iPod line to flash ram based storage.

Think of it this way, 'regular' RAM used to be outrageous in price, now it is dirt cheap. Currently flash ram is outrageously expensive; but, in time; it to will become dirt cheap in cost.

Apple is just planning on being ahead of that curve, and they are willing to take an earnings hit to do so.

Who knows, someday there might be no such thing as HDDs. And for those that immediately cry out "Heresy!", remember the day when computer programs were stored on punch cards…?!?
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Experiment_626 View Post

The biggest advantage to a high-capacity (64GB+) iPod is the ability to hold movies and TV shows on it, but the iPod Classic has the weakest screen for that type of content.

As such, I do believe the HDD-based iPod will leave the lineup sooner rather then later. I imagine once the Touch can get to 64GB for about $349 is when the iPod Classic will drop. Yes, it will require some "storage discipline" on the part of owners, but in all seriousness, if you want to haul around scores of movies and TV shows, you should be looking at a Windows device like the Archos Media Players which sacrifice ease of transport for a form factor that best leverages heavy video content watching.

Yeah - anti Classic people seem to ignore the fact that, if i want to take my Office collection with me (4 seasons) thats ALOT of space, especially if you want a couple movies, and music (say, on a trip without your computer)

Thus, even a 320 HDD iPod does have its uses, its just not economically viable for Apple, especially because Flash is the future. In a few(or more) years i expect 256 GB + flash touches
post #37 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post

Yeah - anti Classic people seem to ignore the fact that, if i want to take my Office collection with me (4 seasons) thats ALOT of space, especially if you want a couple movies, and music (say, on a trip without your computer)

Thus, even a 320 HDD iPod does have its uses, its just not economically viable for Apple, especially because Flash is the future. In a few(or more) years i expect 256 GB + flash touches

Sorry but I'm not buying that argument. The entire Seinfeld collection can fit into 32GB - that's 180 episodes = 90 hours. Unless you are watching them all back to back during the entire trip then there's absolutely no problem and perhaps you shouldn't have gone on the trip if your intention was to watch movies the whole time.

Fair enough, having the whole collection allows you to decide when you get there what you want to watch but it's really not a big problem that Apple would have to cater for a select few people who actually want to have everything with them. Most people will take about 2-3 movies and the next few episodes in a season they are watching in progression along with some music.
post #38 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Sorry but I'm not buying that argument. The entire Seinfeld collection can fit into 32GB - that's 180 episodes = 90 hours. Unless you are watching them all back to back during the entire trip then there's absolutely no problem and perhaps you shouldn't have gone on the trip if your intention was to watch movies the whole time.

Fair enough, having the whole collection allows you to decide when you get there what you want to watch but it's really not a big problem that Apple would have to cater for a select few people who actually want to have everything with them. Most people will take about 2-3 movies and the next few episodes in a season they are watching in progression along with some music.


I'm wondering when it came to pass that those of us who want to carry our entire collection around went from "virtually everyone" when the iPod came out to "select few" now.

Oh, and for the record, Toshiba introduced a 240GB HD to replace the 160. I think there's a good chance that it could find it's way into an iPod Classic at some point (price may be too high right now).
post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter View Post

I'm wondering when it came to pass that those of us who want to carry our entire collection around went from "virtually everyone" when the iPod came out to "select few" now.

Just yesterday. You didn't get Steve's memo?

Seriously though, I doubt that it was virtually everyone. Nobody I know who has ipods do this. They have the older white models 60GB, the new black 80GB ones, 8GB iphones, 1GB shuffles, 4GB minis and none of them do this. I only know one person who has kept the larger ipod because they don't change their collection much. The rest have switched to lower sized iphones or ipods because the sync process is part of owning an ipod. It's just a slave device and it has to get charged anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter View Post

Oh, and for the record, Toshiba introduced a 240GB HD to replace the 160. I think there's a good chance that it could find it's way into an iPod Classic at some point (price may be too high right now).

Maybe but why would they consciously drop the storage? If capacity was a bigger concern than price then they wouldn't have done it. When they make 120GB the biggest in the lineup and say it's one size fits all - note that they didn't leave the 160GB as an option - they are suggesting to people that this is the biggest size you should need. If you have more content than this then an ipod is not where you should be storing it.

Next year the classic could have more storage but they are struggling to push their touch innovations into the click-wheel models so sooner or later, they will have to go.

Here's one thing I'm thinking about in the whole price drop scenario. Have Apple really cut back on their margins with the ipod line? All the price drops seem to be either related to unifying the lineup or dropping capacity. This makes me think that any margin cut-backs are being saved for the Macs.
post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Sorry but I'm not buying that argument. The entire Seinfeld collection can fit into 32GB - that's 180 episodes = 90 hours. Unless you are watching them all back to back during the entire trip then there's absolutely no problem and perhaps you shouldn't have gone on the trip if your intention was to watch movies the whole time.

Fair enough, having the whole collection allows you to decide when you get there what you want to watch but it's really not a big problem that Apple would have to cater for a select few people who actually want to have everything with them. Most people will take about 2-3 movies and the next few episodes in a season they are watching in progression along with some music.

I don't see that as a reason not to offer it, once flash prices come down, of course.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Death of iPod Classic - Replaced by a 160GB HDD iPod Touch?