- Rear camera (still and camcorder) with a decent glass lens and zoom. Real Flash which I know is a battery hog. Front camera would be nice too for video conferencing.
- GPS, also difficult to implement due to antenna requirements and lack of tower assist, but possible.
- Mic with speak for VoIP. May be ATT would be happy.
Since the iPod sales are tapering, Apple got to add new compelling features and open markets. Otherwise the category atrophies.
I'm thinking it must be a very small group that still believe lossless music sounds better, or can't handle a touch screen.
It's not all about lossless music. I have no lossless music on my iPod (it's all 128 or 256 kbps), and even if there were a 64 GB touch it wouldn't be big enough for my content which includes music, podcasts, video (nearly all from iTunes), and photos.
I know the argument is "you don't need to keep all your content on your iPod, you can just rotate content." Well, I've got much better things to do with my time than manually manage content on my iPod. And the touch still has the major limitation (in my opinion) of not being able to be used as a storage device. It has other limitations compared to my 5 gen iPod (no FM, can't download photos from my camera), but the lack of storage functionality is a big negative. Granted, the touch has other huge advantages, but while I'd be willing to replace my iPod with a touch, I don't want to have to supplement it (ie, don't want to have to carry around both devices).
I'd be surprised to see the Classic dropped without a viable large-capacity music-only device in place, but I bought one this month just in case
I think Apple has shown a nod to 'audiophile' music-lovers all along, and if I'm not mistaken I believe Mr. Jobs himself is one, at least on the equipment end (I know nothing of his sonic discriminability but recall reading somewhere that he has some *very* high-end equipment in a dedicated space.) True or not, music has certainly been a passionate concern of Apple's and a dedicated HD-centered device still makes sense, at least to me. A camera in a Classic makes as much sense as boobs on a bull \
It might be a niche market, but the Classic was designed for a specific function that's still certainly viable. And hey - they keep that Mini around, too
The classic buyers fancy themselves as "audiophiles" anyway so if they wanted to take pictures
I don't think that's true at all. I know a couple of people at work who have 120GB Classic who definitely don't fancy themselves as audiophiles! They just wanted the most capacity for their money, and that's where the Classic comes up trumps time and again. The Classic will be redudent when the Touch or Nano can offer the same capacity at the same price.
1) full voip function on the touch. Integration with iChat and the public phone network.
2) allow iTunes 9 to sync a smaller set of music from my "master" iTunes. So laptop can have just 5 gb of music while on the road. Same goes for iPhoto.
3) allow slideshows on iPods, iphone, and appletv.
4) keep the classic for genius lists. It's great for letting a friend with distinctly different tastes find music they like. Wish they'd add genius for my old 80gb classic.
5) it'd be interesting if the iPod nano could make 2g phone calls. Not sure where that'd go though.
6) is it time to support avi files directly?
7) new appletv. Cheaper. Subscription content. Integrate appletv options with iPhone options to present one common "video content market"
8) cheap upgrades for my music so it's music videos where possible
Yes it does. You can turn it on in the settings menu.
Must have reset the iPod and forgot to turn it back on some time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Shuffle (or "randomize" as you call it) is not "fixed" because it's not broken. With shuffle on, every single track that has not been played in the current session has equal probability of being the next track. This inevitably leads to tracks from the same album/artist sometimes being played consecutively, or if you start a new session, tracks you heard last time being played before other ones. The larger your library, the more likely it is that some songs will seem never to be played.
Ahh, yes that's what has been happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
How old is your iPod? iPod Classics have supported smart playlists since at least the third generation (the one that was all touch-sensitive with a row of four buttons above the scroll wheel).
No, that's not necessary, because as you said, you can build a smart playlist to do it yourself.
One odd thing is that Apple took away "smart shuffle" in iTunes 8. If desired, this could be set to interfere with the true randomness of shuffle, ensuring that tracks from the same album/artist would not be played consecutively.
Yea too bad about Apple taking away the smart shuffle, perhaps they just integrated it.
So the intelligent features of a smart playlist work on a recent iPod as well, meaning it's dynamic and not just a static holder from a iTunes sync?
Will the songs of a time dated smart playlist on a iPod renew itself or require a sync to iTunes?
Does the iPod remember the last play date of each song to enable this to work? (I have the 160 or 180GB big iPod)
Obviously I'll still hear a same song twice within a month if I play both my iPod and iTunes, but if I sync does the most recent play date of songs gets transferred back to iTunes from the iPod?
I'd be surprised to see the Classic dropped without a viable large-capacity music-only device in place, but I bought one this month just in case
I think Apple has shown a nod to 'audiophile' music-lovers all along, and if I'm not mistaken I believe Mr. Jobs himself is one, at least on the equipment end (I know nothing of his sonic discriminability but recall reading somewhere that he has some *very* high-end equipment in a dedicated space.) True or not, music has certainly been a passionate concern of Apple's and a dedicated HD-centered device still makes sense, at least to me. A camera in a Classic makes as much sense as boobs on a bull \
It might be a niche market, but the Classic was designed for a specific function that's still certainly viable. And hey - they keep that Mini around, too
We'll see.
People would raise hell if Apple kills the iPod Classic.
It makes the perfect device for storing large amounts of music, and it doesn't need a big screen or anything else, because people look at just long enough to set a playlist and go. The price is good too. Unfortunatly it's fragile being hard drive based.
If Apple makes a large capacity iPod Touch with flash memory, then that would work. But memory costs a fortune.
Now there is SDXC from San Disk, 2TB with speeds 2x as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, all on a tiny SD card.
1) iPod Touch updated with camera, flash, LED, and 5Mp (16Mb, 32Mb and 64Mb models).
2) iPod Touch Nano with same camera features above and LED screen. Comes in multi-colors
3) Retirement of the Classic
4) iPod Touch Pad: a larger form factor with iPhone OS that's made for competing against the Kindle for reading books and watching movies.
a few changes please
1) iPod Touch updated with camera, flash, LED, and 5Mp (32Mb, 64Mb and 128mb SSD models).
2) iPod Touch Nano with same camera features above and LED screen. Comes in multi-colors
3) NANO PHONE
4> classic forever 320 g or ssd model
4) iPod Touch Pad: size is 9x6 mac OSx that's made for competing against the Kindle for reading books and watching mov and a new app store or larger devices
So the intelligent features of a smart playlist work on a recent iPod as well, meaning it's dynamic and not just a static holder from a iTunes sync?
And not so recent. The third gen iPod came out years ago (2003).
I don't know why they aren't working for you. Do you have the "live updating" box ticked for the smart playlists that you are trying to use? (select the smart playlist in iTunes and press command-i to bring up the smart playlist info.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
Will the songs of a time dated smart playlist on a iPod renew itself
Yes, if "live updating" is checked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
Does the iPod remember the last play date of each song to enable this to work?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
if I sync does the most recent play date of songs gets transferred back to iTunes from the iPod?
Yes. Playcounts get updated too. Try it. Find a song in iTunes that hasn't been played for a while, then find it on your iPod and play it on the iPod. Then sync the iPod with iTunes and check that the "last played" date and play count have been updated in iTunes.
They are so foolish. Don't they know music is just that noise you hear in the supermarket
or on the elevator?
Well, a lot of people called me on this, so I guess I'll own up to just having some fun with the "audiophile" crowd, cause I think they're funny.
The first point I made about the Classic already being bigger and heavier than most point and shoot cameras was my main one and I think it's still a good one.
Personally, I wouldn't carry such a large device with only a single purpose, but I'm not in favour of discontinuing it and am a little shocked that they have discontinued the sku.
Now there is SDXC from San Disk, 2TB with speeds 2x as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, all on a tiny SD card.
Er, no there isn't. You can't get 2 TB SD cards, nor will you be able to for several years, and they'll be enormously expensive when they do arrive. What has happened recently is the specification for SDXC was released, which will allow for 2 TB capacities once the process size for the memory cells is small enough.
It's not all about lossless music. I have no lossless music on my iPod (it's all 128 or 256 kbps), and even if there were a 64 GB touch it wouldn't be big enough for my content which includes music, podcasts, video (nearly all from iTunes), and photos.
I know the argument is "you don't need to keep all your content on your iPod, you can just rotate content." Well, I've got much better things to do with my time than manually manage content on my iPod. ...
This is true and I wasn't trying to be particularly mean or anything (well except to the lossless music-file enthusiasts ), but the reality right now is that you can't take it all with you.
I'm in a similar situation myself in that I can only carry about 10 or 12 GBs of music on my iPhone because I also watch a coupe of podcasts each day and take pictures etc. My real music library is about 25GB right now. I have about 150GB more of video in iTunes though which I can't take with me at all without deleting a lot of music. It would sure be nice to have those with me sometimes.
The point is though, you *have* to manage what's on the iPod/iPhone and that's pretty much the whole point of having such a device at all. It's a synced subset of your home computer as opposed to being your entire computer.
It will be interesting in the future if the memory ever gets big enough to make syncing irrelevant though. How many people will ditch their home computers altogether?
I guess I'll do the honors and post the obligatory response to the people calling for a 5MP camera in the touch:
Unless Apple redesigns the lens, 5MP isn't going to do shit for image quality. And if they have a redesigned lens that would fit comfortably on the Touch, I can't see why they wouldn't have used it on the iPhone, since it's the single best thing you can do for IQ while being battery and CPU neutral.
I know there are a lot of people who have some kind of superstitious faith in the power of "5MP" to enhance the value of their purchase, but as has been explained at length just upping pixel densities on the tiny sensors used in devices like the Touch is more likely to get your sharper noise than a better photo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
I don't think that's true at all. I know a couple of people at work who have 120GB Classic who definitely don't fancy themselves as audiophiles! They just wanted the most capacity for their money, and that's where the Classic comes up trumps time and again. The Classic will be redudent when the Touch or Nano can offer the same capacity at the same price.
I dunno, I think there might be some point which is "big enough" for 99% of Apple's customers. I don't know if 64 GB is it, but a suspect next years 128 GB Touch might be.
Just because it might be possible to make a 250GB HD Classic at that point for less than a Touch doesn't mean very many people want or need that kind of room in a portable device.
I mean, I know there will always be some people who simply want as much room as humanly possible, I just suspect that their numbers are too small for Apple to cater to.
I don't think the Classic makes sense as a camera given that it's already both bigger and heavier than most of today's "point and shoot" cameras.
The classic buyers fancy themselves as "audiophiles" anyway so if they wanted to take pictures, they probably wouldn't be happy with a tiny webcam stuck on the back, they'd want an SLR that used "real film."
Funny! Agreed....along with the 'real film' they probably have a teac reel-to-reel and turn table...my father still uses his Carver-state of the art in 1982!
If the classic isn't discontinued this year it will be soon...I agree with the previous post about Apple going 'solid-state.' eventually, in the next few years their laptops will be SSD, certainly their MBA line!
Wouldn't it be interesting if the rumored Tablet is actually the iPod replacement/upgrade? Seems to me there are so many crossover points between the two that it might be possible.
I guess I'll do the honors and post the obligatory response to the people calling for a 5MP camera in the touch:
Unless Apple redesigns the lens, 5MP isn't going to do shit for image quality. And if they have a redesigned lens that would fit comfortably on the Touch, I can't see why they wouldn't have used it on the iPhone, since it's the single best thing you can do for IQ while being battery and CPU neutral.
I know there are a lot of people who have some kind of superstitious faith in the power of "5MP" to enhance the value of their purchase, but as has been explained at length just upping pixel densities on the tiny sensors used in devices like the Touch is more likely to get your sharper noise than a better photo.
Unless the camera is mounted on the side of the Touch I don’t see how any 5Mpx camera could fits in such a thin enclosure in the back like the iPhone and still remain flush with the device. I’m sure many wouldn’t mind Apple just having it stick out like many Nokia phones, but that isn’t Apple’s MO so we can’t reasonable expect them to do that.
Remember a post a month or so back saying Apple have not renewed their order for all but the solid state hard disks for what I believe are the iPod classic and/or the MacBook Air?
This coincides with the refresh of the iPod classic. I believe the iPod classic will evolve to flash memory and will retain its dimensions except it will be as slim as an iPod Nano.
However, a good pointer would be to look at the refurbished ipods in the Apple Store. They are selling off all the nanos and the touches.
It could go either way, but the sensible evolution of the classic iPod would be a 32GB and a 64GB option.
Remember a post a month or so back saying Apple have not renewed their order for all but the solid state hard disks for what I believe are the iPod classic and/or the MacBook Air?
This coincides with the refresh of the iPod classic. I believe the iPod classic will evolve to flash memory and will retain its dimensions except it will be as slim as an iPod Nano.
However, a good pointer would be to look at the refurbished ipods in the Apple Store. They are selling off all the nanos and the touches.
It could go either way, but the sensible evolution of the classic iPod would be a 32GB and a 64GB option.
I am selling my classic on eBay as we speak!
I?m trying to understand your vision here, but I?m having trouble. Last year, Apple upped the 80GB to 120GB and then dropped the 160GB altogether. I word that as such because the 80GB to 120GB is still a single-platter 1.8? HDD while the 160GB was a double-platter 1.8? HDD that made the device thicker. People were already upset that Apple dropped the larger capacity Classic. I just can?t imagine that Apple would go for ¼ to ½ the capacity of the current Classic while also making it more expensive at the same time because they are using a considerably more expensive storage medium for that 1.8? space. I just don?t see the marketing logic in that.
And not so recent. The third gen iPod came out years ago (2003).
I don't know why they aren't working for you. Do you have the "live updating" box ticked for the smart playlists that you are trying to use? (select the smart playlist in iTunes and press command-i to bring up the smart playlist info.)
Yes, live updating is checked. I thought the iPod playlists were just dumb holders, meaning iTunes did the smart playlist updates and then a sync was required to update the iPod playlists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Yes. Playcounts get updated too. Try it. Find a song in iTunes that hasn't been played for a while, then find it on your iPod and play it on the iPod. Then sync the iPod with iTunes and check that the "last played" date and play count have been updated in iTunes.
Comments
- Rear camera (still and camcorder) with a decent glass lens and zoom. Real Flash which I know is a battery hog. Front camera would be nice too for video conferencing.
- GPS, also difficult to implement due to antenna requirements and lack of tower assist, but possible.
- Mic with speak for VoIP. May be ATT would be happy.
Since the iPod sales are tapering, Apple got to add new compelling features and open markets. Otherwise the category atrophies.
I'm thinking it must be a very small group that still believe lossless music sounds better, or can't handle a touch screen.
It's not all about lossless music. I have no lossless music on my iPod (it's all 128 or 256 kbps), and even if there were a 64 GB touch it wouldn't be big enough for my content which includes music, podcasts, video (nearly all from iTunes), and photos.
I know the argument is "you don't need to keep all your content on your iPod, you can just rotate content." Well, I've got much better things to do with my time than manually manage content on my iPod. And the touch still has the major limitation (in my opinion) of not being able to be used as a storage device. It has other limitations compared to my 5 gen iPod (no FM, can't download photos from my camera), but the lack of storage functionality is a big negative. Granted, the touch has other huge advantages, but while I'd be willing to replace my iPod with a touch, I don't want to have to supplement it (ie, don't want to have to carry around both devices).
iPod shuffle - both flavors still, at least for while.
iPod nano - keep it at 16GB, possibly a camera
iPod touch - 128GB w/camera - iPhone possibly to 64GB (but not in Sept) but not as large as touch - Different market, different product.
iPod classic - gone
I think Apple has shown a nod to 'audiophile' music-lovers all along, and if I'm not mistaken I believe Mr. Jobs himself is one, at least on the equipment end (I know nothing of his sonic discriminability but recall reading somewhere that he has some *very* high-end equipment in a dedicated space.) True or not, music has certainly been a passionate concern of Apple's and a dedicated HD-centered device still makes sense, at least to me. A camera in a Classic makes as much sense as boobs on a bull
It might be a niche market, but the Classic was designed for a specific function that's still certainly viable. And hey - they keep that Mini around, too
We'll see.
The classic buyers fancy themselves as "audiophiles" anyway so if they wanted to take pictures
I don't think that's true at all. I know a couple of people at work who have 120GB Classic who definitely don't fancy themselves as audiophiles! They just wanted the most capacity for their money, and that's where the Classic comes up trumps time and again. The Classic will be redudent when the Touch or Nano can offer the same capacity at the same price.
1) full voip function on the touch. Integration with iChat and the public phone network.
2) allow iTunes 9 to sync a smaller set of music from my "master" iTunes. So laptop can have just 5 gb of music while on the road. Same goes for iPhoto.
3) allow slideshows on iPods, iphone, and appletv.
4) keep the classic for genius lists. It's great for letting a friend with distinctly different tastes find music they like. Wish they'd add genius for my old 80gb classic.
5) it'd be interesting if the iPod nano could make 2g phone calls. Not sure where that'd go though.
6) is it time to support avi files directly?
7) new appletv. Cheaper. Subscription content. Integrate appletv options with iPhone options to present one common "video content market"
8) cheap upgrades for my music so it's music videos where possible
Hope for half, eh?
Yes it does. You can turn it on in the settings menu.
Must have reset the iPod and forgot to turn it back on some time ago.
Shuffle (or "randomize" as you call it) is not "fixed" because it's not broken. With shuffle on, every single track that has not been played in the current session has equal probability of being the next track. This inevitably leads to tracks from the same album/artist sometimes being played consecutively, or if you start a new session, tracks you heard last time being played before other ones. The larger your library, the more likely it is that some songs will seem never to be played.
Ahh, yes that's what has been happening.
How old is your iPod? iPod Classics have supported smart playlists since at least the third generation (the one that was all touch-sensitive with a row of four buttons above the scroll wheel).
No, that's not necessary, because as you said, you can build a smart playlist to do it yourself.
One odd thing is that Apple took away "smart shuffle" in iTunes 8. If desired, this could be set to interfere with the true randomness of shuffle, ensuring that tracks from the same album/artist would not be played consecutively.
Yea too bad about Apple taking away the smart shuffle, perhaps they just integrated it.
So the intelligent features of a smart playlist work on a recent iPod as well, meaning it's dynamic and not just a static holder from a iTunes sync?
Will the songs of a time dated smart playlist on a iPod renew itself or require a sync to iTunes?
Does the iPod remember the last play date of each song to enable this to work? (I have the 160 or 180GB big iPod)
Obviously I'll still hear a same song twice within a month if I play both my iPod and iTunes, but if I sync does the most recent play date of songs gets transferred back to iTunes from the iPod?
Thanks, I feel so noobish...
I'd be surprised to see the Classic dropped without a viable large-capacity music-only device in place, but I bought one this month just in case
I think Apple has shown a nod to 'audiophile' music-lovers all along, and if I'm not mistaken I believe Mr. Jobs himself is one, at least on the equipment end (I know nothing of his sonic discriminability but recall reading somewhere that he has some *very* high-end equipment in a dedicated space.) True or not, music has certainly been a passionate concern of Apple's and a dedicated HD-centered device still makes sense, at least to me. A camera in a Classic makes as much sense as boobs on a bull
It might be a niche market, but the Classic was designed for a specific function that's still certainly viable. And hey - they keep that Mini around, too
We'll see.
People would raise hell if Apple kills the iPod Classic.
It makes the perfect device for storing large amounts of music, and it doesn't need a big screen or anything else, because people look at just long enough to set a playlist and go. The price is good too. Unfortunatly it's fragile being hard drive based.
If Apple makes a large capacity iPod Touch with flash memory, then that would work. But memory costs a fortune.
Now there is SDXC from San Disk, 2TB with speeds 2x as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, all on a tiny SD card.
Put that in a iPod and now we are talking!
Would be nice if the following were true.
1) iPod Touch updated with camera, flash, LED, and 5Mp (16Mb, 32Mb and 64Mb models).
2) iPod Touch Nano with same camera features above and LED screen. Comes in multi-colors
3) Retirement of the Classic
4) iPod Touch Pad: a larger form factor with iPhone OS that's made for competing against the Kindle for reading books and watching movies.
a few changes please
1) iPod Touch updated with camera, flash, LED, and 5Mp (32Mb, 64Mb and 128mb SSD models).
2) iPod Touch Nano with same camera features above and LED screen. Comes in multi-colors
3) NANO PHONE
4> classic forever 320 g or ssd model
4) iPod Touch Pad: size is 9x6 mac OSx that's made for competing against the Kindle for reading books and watching mov and a new app store or larger devices
just saying
So the intelligent features of a smart playlist work on a recent iPod as well, meaning it's dynamic and not just a static holder from a iTunes sync?
And not so recent. The third gen iPod came out years ago (2003).
I don't know why they aren't working for you. Do you have the "live updating" box ticked for the smart playlists that you are trying to use? (select the smart playlist in iTunes and press command-i to bring up the smart playlist info.)
Will the songs of a time dated smart playlist on a iPod renew itself
Yes, if "live updating" is checked.
Does the iPod remember the last play date of each song to enable this to work?
Yes.
if I sync does the most recent play date of songs gets transferred back to iTunes from the iPod?
Yes. Playcounts get updated too. Try it. Find a song in iTunes that hasn't been played for a while, then find it on your iPod and play it on the iPod. Then sync the iPod with iTunes and check that the "last played" date and play count have been updated in iTunes.
They are so foolish. Don't they know music is just that noise you hear in the supermarket
or on the elevator?
Well, a lot of people called me on this, so I guess I'll own up to just having some fun with the "audiophile" crowd, cause I think they're funny.
The first point I made about the Classic already being bigger and heavier than most point and shoot cameras was my main one and I think it's still a good one.
Personally, I wouldn't carry such a large device with only a single purpose, but I'm not in favour of discontinuing it and am a little shocked that they have discontinued the sku.
Now there is SDXC from San Disk, 2TB with speeds 2x as fast as a 7,200 RPM hard drive, all on a tiny SD card.
Er, no there isn't. You can't get 2 TB SD cards, nor will you be able to for several years, and they'll be enormously expensive when they do arrive. What has happened recently is the specification for SDXC was released, which will allow for 2 TB capacities once the process size for the memory cells is small enough.
It's not all about lossless music. I have no lossless music on my iPod (it's all 128 or 256 kbps), and even if there were a 64 GB touch it wouldn't be big enough for my content which includes music, podcasts, video (nearly all from iTunes), and photos.
I know the argument is "you don't need to keep all your content on your iPod, you can just rotate content." Well, I've got much better things to do with my time than manually manage content on my iPod. ...
This is true and I wasn't trying to be particularly mean or anything (well except to the lossless music-file enthusiasts
I'm in a similar situation myself in that I can only carry about 10 or 12 GBs of music on my iPhone because I also watch a coupe of podcasts each day and take pictures etc. My real music library is about 25GB right now. I have about 150GB more of video in iTunes though which I can't take with me at all without deleting a lot of music. It would sure be nice to have those with me sometimes.
The point is though, you *have* to manage what's on the iPod/iPhone and that's pretty much the whole point of having such a device at all. It's a synced subset of your home computer as opposed to being your entire computer.
It will be interesting in the future if the memory ever gets big enough to make syncing irrelevant though. How many people will ditch their home computers altogether?
Unless Apple redesigns the lens, 5MP isn't going to do shit for image quality. And if they have a redesigned lens that would fit comfortably on the Touch, I can't see why they wouldn't have used it on the iPhone, since it's the single best thing you can do for IQ while being battery and CPU neutral.
I know there are a lot of people who have some kind of superstitious faith in the power of "5MP" to enhance the value of their purchase, but as has been explained at length just upping pixel densities on the tiny sensors used in devices like the Touch is more likely to get your sharper noise than a better photo.
I don't think that's true at all. I know a couple of people at work who have 120GB Classic who definitely don't fancy themselves as audiophiles! They just wanted the most capacity for their money, and that's where the Classic comes up trumps time and again. The Classic will be redudent when the Touch or Nano can offer the same capacity at the same price.
I dunno, I think there might be some point which is "big enough" for 99% of Apple's customers. I don't know if 64 GB is it, but a suspect next years 128 GB Touch might be.
Just because it might be possible to make a 250GB HD Classic at that point for less than a Touch doesn't mean very many people want or need that kind of room in a portable device.
I mean, I know there will always be some people who simply want as much room as humanly possible, I just suspect that their numbers are too small for Apple to cater to.
I don't think the Classic makes sense as a camera given that it's already both bigger and heavier than most of today's "point and shoot" cameras.
The classic buyers fancy themselves as "audiophiles" anyway so if they wanted to take pictures, they probably wouldn't be happy with a tiny webcam stuck on the back, they'd want an SLR that used "real film."
Funny! Agreed....along with the 'real film' they probably have a teac reel-to-reel and turn table...my father still uses his Carver-state of the art in 1982!
If the classic isn't discontinued this year it will be soon...I agree with the previous post about Apple going 'solid-state.' eventually, in the next few years their laptops will be SSD, certainly their MBA line!
I guess I'll do the honors and post the obligatory response to the people calling for a 5MP camera in the touch:
Unless Apple redesigns the lens, 5MP isn't going to do shit for image quality. And if they have a redesigned lens that would fit comfortably on the Touch, I can't see why they wouldn't have used it on the iPhone, since it's the single best thing you can do for IQ while being battery and CPU neutral.
I know there are a lot of people who have some kind of superstitious faith in the power of "5MP" to enhance the value of their purchase, but as has been explained at length just upping pixel densities on the tiny sensors used in devices like the Touch is more likely to get your sharper noise than a better photo.
Unless the camera is mounted on the side of the Touch I don’t see how any 5Mpx camera could fits in such a thin enclosure in the back like the iPhone and still remain flush with the device. I’m sure many wouldn’t mind Apple just having it stick out like many Nokia phones, but that isn’t Apple’s MO so we can’t reasonable expect them to do that.
This coincides with the refresh of the iPod classic. I believe the iPod classic will evolve to flash memory and will retain its dimensions except it will be as slim as an iPod Nano.
However, a good pointer would be to look at the refurbished ipods in the Apple Store. They are selling off all the nanos and the touches.
It could go either way, but the sensible evolution of the classic iPod would be a 32GB and a 64GB option.
I am selling my classic on eBay as we speak!
Remember a post a month or so back saying Apple have not renewed their order for all but the solid state hard disks for what I believe are the iPod classic and/or the MacBook Air?
This coincides with the refresh of the iPod classic. I believe the iPod classic will evolve to flash memory and will retain its dimensions except it will be as slim as an iPod Nano.
However, a good pointer would be to look at the refurbished ipods in the Apple Store. They are selling off all the nanos and the touches.
It could go either way, but the sensible evolution of the classic iPod would be a 32GB and a 64GB option.
I am selling my classic on eBay as we speak!
I?m trying to understand your vision here, but I?m having trouble. Last year, Apple upped the 80GB to 120GB and then dropped the 160GB altogether. I word that as such because the 80GB to 120GB is still a single-platter 1.8? HDD while the 160GB was a double-platter 1.8? HDD that made the device thicker. People were already upset that Apple dropped the larger capacity Classic. I just can?t imagine that Apple would go for ¼ to ½ the capacity of the current Classic while also making it more expensive at the same time because they are using a considerably more expensive storage medium for that 1.8? space. I just don?t see the marketing logic in that.
And not so recent. The third gen iPod came out years ago (2003).
I don't know why they aren't working for you. Do you have the "live updating" box ticked for the smart playlists that you are trying to use? (select the smart playlist in iTunes and press command-i to bring up the smart playlist info.)
Yes, live updating is checked. I thought the iPod playlists were just dumb holders, meaning iTunes did the smart playlist updates and then a sync was required to update the iPod playlists.
Yes. Playcounts get updated too. Try it. Find a song in iTunes that hasn't been played for a while, then find it on your iPod and play it on the iPod. Then sync the iPod with iTunes and check that the "last played" date and play count have been updated in iTunes.
Good, thanks for your help.