How long til the 20GB iPod?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Perhaps if Apple actually releases anotherr verson of the greatest MP3 player cum PDA... then it should be cheaper.

5 GB $299

10GB $399

20GB $499



Now I know that a 1.8 in 20GB drive doesn't yet exist - there's a 2.5 in 20 GB certainly.

Thus it seems certain that Apple will not release a 4,000 song iPod this year.

I still want them to lower the dang prices! I'll be getting an iPod soon, whether they bring it down or not. Please dissuade me - tell me that the next version released at MWNY will be a true PC-wuppin PDA!
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    [quote] I still want them to lower the dang prices! I'll be getting an iPod soon, whether they bring it down or not. <hr></blockquote>



    This is precisely why Apple hasn't lowered prices. If they can sell as many as they make no matter what they price it at, then why would they lower the price? :confused:



    If you want Apple to lower iPod prices, then don't buy an iPod until the price is lower. Simple. Nobody needs an iPod anyways, most cars have CD players now, and at home there's the home stereo or the computer. Life doesn't have to have a constant presence of background music.
  • Reply 2 of 46
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    [quote]Originally posted by cdhostage:

    <strong>Now I know that a 1.8 in 20GB drive doesn't yet exist - there's a 2.5 in 20 GB certainly.

    Thus it seems certain that Apple will not release a 4,000 song iPod this year.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    If I'm not mistaken, there is a 20 GB 1.8 incher. I believe it is 3mm thicker though.
  • Reply 3 of 46
    cdhostagecdhostage Posts: 1,038member
    [quote]Originally posted by Flounder:

    <strong>



    If I'm not mistaken, there is a 20 GB 1.8 incher. I believe it is 3mm thicker though.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    truly?

    Perhapos it is a 3 platter HD. IBM came out with the pixie dust tech, which doubled the capacity per area of modern-tech HDs. Fine and good.

    So the one I remember is a two platter pxie dust giant magnetoresistive and all that jazz HD in a 2.5in case that holds 20 GB.
  • Reply 4 of 46
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Life doesn't have to have a constant presence of background music.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------



    very true. I for one value silence.



    geeze louise people isn't 10 gigs enough?



    (yes i know there are a small percentage with 60 gig of (legal?) mp3s on your hd but no matter what the size someone is going to post "when is apple going to ship an X size ipod" where X is the size they _think_ they need.
  • Reply 5 of 46
    naepstnnaepstn Posts: 78member
    While 10GB is enough music for me (in fact, 5GB is likely enough), I would want at least 10GB to use for data storage/transfer. I really want an external Firewire 10GB HD, and would really love to have an MP3 player in addition. So, for me, a 15-20 GB iPod would be fabulous.
  • Reply 6 of 46
    I bought a 10 GB iPod because I thought it would be more than enough and I didn't think I had much music to rip. Well, I've ripped most of my CDs (less than 40) and I'm about 50% full (I rip at 160 kbps). I suspect the people who really are into music will have 100+ CDs, so a 20 GB iPod would what they will require.



    And that's not factoring in use it as a data storage device.



    The thing I love about the iPod is I can listen to any song or album I have very quickly. No longer do I have to lug my CDs around.



    So yes, there is a market for a 20 GB iPod. I don't think that Apple will keep the 5 GB once the 20 GB is out and prices will stay the same especially if Apple releases a Windows version.
  • Reply 7 of 46
    cdhostagecdhostage Posts: 1,038member
    [quote]Originally posted by keyboardf12:

    <strong>geeze louise people isn't 10 gigs enough?



    (yes i know there are a small percentage with 60 gig of (legal?) mp3s on your hd but no matter what the size someone is going to post "when is apple going to ship an X size ipod" where X is the size they _think_ they need. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    My friend, I'd much rather have a 100 GB HD that would hold my entire CD collection in full quality.
  • Reply 8 of 46
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Just as predicted
  • Reply 9 of 46
    cdhostagecdhostage Posts: 1,038member
    No seriously f12.



    Assume that each of my CDs is 650 megs data. Not all these CDs are full, but let's asume they are.



    iTunes says I have 90 albums. Fine.

    90 * 650 = 58500 megs

    58500/1024 = 58 gigs



    So if I get more CDs I'll still be able to fit them at full CD quality on my 100 GB iPod.
  • Reply 10 of 46
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    I figure the next jump will go big like 100GB to cater to people who want their entire collection in the palm of their hand.



    I'd much prefer that and have them lower the 5GB version to $249 and the 10GB to $399
  • Reply 11 of 46
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,294member
    There will be a 20GB iPod for $600 when other MP3 players have standardized on 40GB for $300 with twice the features. This is not a prediction. This is Apple's standard opperating procedure. By the way, the faithful will buy them as fast as Apple can produce them and declare it to be the best MP3 player of all time. They will also caution people against falling for the GB myth and the advanced features myth, explaining why less is more.
  • Reply 12 of 46
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac Voyer:

    <strong>There will be a 20GB iPod for $600 when other MP3 players have standardized on 40GB for $300 with twice the features. This is not a prediction. This is Apple's standard opperating procedure. By the way, the faithful will buy them as fast as Apple can produce them and declare it to be the best MP3 player of all time. They will also caution people against falling for the GB myth and the advanced features myth, explaining why less is more.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh sure the 'others' might have 60GB but...



    - They'll be 3x the iPod physical size

    - They'll be 1/2 the battery life

    - They'll *still* be USB!





    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    Dave
  • Reply 13 of 46
    crayzcrayz Posts: 73member
    Assume that each of my CDs is 650 megs data.



    OK, but since the iPod is an MP3 player how about we also assume you rip this music to MP3 format? Human ears cannot tell the difference between a good 256kbps MP3 and CD audio, so I don't see why you wouldn't. At that size its about 2MB/minute of music, which means you should be able to get around 80 hours of music on the 10GB iPod, which is probably about 80 albums.



    Now...I would like an iPod bigger than 10GB, but I don't really think its necessary for the time being.
  • Reply 14 of 46
    crayzcrayz Posts: 73member
    Oh sure the 'others' might have 60GB but...



    - They'll be 3x the iPod physical size

    - They'll be 1/2 the battery life

    - They'll *still* be USB!




    Don't be ridiculous. About the only part of that that's even remotely reasonable to think is the size part. I think the Nomad Jukebox 3 already has battery life equal to or better than the iPod, and that player as well as others are already going to USB2 and FireWire.



    And if Apple can be said to lead with smaller players and faster connections, the other companies certainly lead with more storage space, more features, and lower prices.



    [ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: crayz ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 46
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by crayz:

    <strong>Don't be ridiculous. About the only part of that that's even remotely reasonable to think is the size part. I think the Nomad Jukebox 3 already has battery life equal to or better than the iPod, and that player as well as others are already going to USB2 and FireWire.



    And if Apple can be said to lead with smaller players and faster connections, the other companies certainly lead with more storage space, more features, and lower prices.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ummm I'm not being ridiculous at all.



    Apple inovates while others follow... It has always been that way and unless Apple dies it always will be.



    History:



    Who built the first postscript laser for market?

    Who lit the fire for a GUI interface and WYSIWYG?

    Who lit the fire for PDA's?

    Who lit the fire for LCD cameras?

    Who lit the fire for 802.11? (plus more!)

    Who lit the fire for USB?

    Who invented Firewire?



    lit the fire = got the market going



    Who kickstarted AOL?

    Who kickstarted Palm?

    Who kickstarted General Magic?

    Who kickstarted WebTV?

    Who kickstarted Electronic Arts?



    kickstarted = formed by ex-Apple people and/or helped directly by Apple.



    I could keep going but what's the point.. If you don't get it you never will.



    (* more on 802.11) Oh and who used their money time and lawyers to petition the FCC (with some others - it wasn't *just Apple* but that's not the point Apple was the driving force) to allow for open access to the 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz bands in the first place? (many many years ago) Funny I can't quite remember but it was Dell oh wait noooo that too was Apple...



    Apple has a unique tallent to kickstart markets, invent things and look far into the future. Most of the companies doing hardware today just follow the next guy who happens to be following the next guy who just happens to be following Apple...



    Dave



    [ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 46
    cdhostagecdhostage Posts: 1,038member
    I agree that Apple starts new technologies. The fact is that Apple does it sporadically and leaves the rest of the line to founder.



    I'd complain less if Motorola actually delivered G4s at reasonable speeds, but they don't. That's not Apple's fauly of course. What is Apple's fault is not taking the Power Mac and the iMac and the PB G4 and taking each design to its limits. hey, they charge enough for the privelege of using a mac!



    The iPod is a wonderful machine. The current situation it's in is perfect for what it does.



    If Apple wants to make it a PDA, then the scrren needs to be a touchscreen and the processors fast enough to handle Inkwell. In fact, I wouldn't mind it being a little bigger if it were a PDA. If the iPod swelled to accomodate IBMs 20GB 2.5 in drive, then it would be little bigger than the common Palm.



    I think I'll wait til MWNY in July just in case.
  • Reply 17 of 46
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Anyone claiming any figure is "enough" should be labled "ridiculous!" There will always be a use for more storage space. Always. What if the entire industry and customers alike thought a 10GB mp3 player was "enough?" Would we ever see a larger capacity mp3 player again? No- there would be no demand and therefor no reason to manufacture such a device.



    Please, if what you're trying to say is that the 10GB iPod is a damn good mp3 player then say it. But the need for more storage space is real, and it will never subside. Get used to it.



    [ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 46
    crayzcrayz Posts: 73member
    DaveGee are you gonna talk about the iPod or what? Because thats what I was talking about. Your post was completely worthless - quite an accomplishment.
  • Reply 19 of 46
    codewarriorcodewarrior Posts: 196member
    I remember when Bill Gates stated 640K was enough RAM. Enough is never enough. People will find additional uses for the extra resource. I hate when people start sentences with "Well, the average user...".



    Maybe Apple comes out with a combination Audio/Video player once the size of the hard drives gets large enough called iPorn. Then you can have your bootleg audio and your bootleg p0rn.



    So a 20 gb iPod is a sure thing.



    [ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: CodeWarrior ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 46
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by crayz:

    <strong>DaveGee are you gonna talk about the iPod or what? Because thats what I was talking about. Your post was completely worthless - quite an accomplishment.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I was replying to what YOU had to say and now uou don't want to hear it? Well thats just too bad. I was just pointing out that Apple has and always be an innovator that others will copy (tons of examples already given) .... You can bash Apple and the iPod all like but fact is MP3 players were getting larger (in size) slower and had shorter play times and that was all changed after the iPod.



    Think about it if someone last summer had posted into a MP3 related forum that come November Apple Computer was going to change the way all those WinFavored MP3 players were built and at the same time NOT even market it to WinTel world s/he would have been flamed off the board.



    Well fast forward and look at the results...



    Also to those who still want a cheap iPod why not just build it yourself?



    Battery+Circut Board+CPUs+Case+Cable+Power-Adapter - Best Price Unknown

    Bare Toshiba 5GB 1.8" Drive - Best Price I could find $340



    I'm sure you can build the whole thing for $299 but then you'll have to find someone to donate their time to design the thing and then you just need a place to give you the Toshiba drives for free... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    Dave



    [ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.