I require at least 25 TBs of data. It should also be able to play movies at 7,680 × 4,320. The main problem with the whole plan is that 25 terrabyes is only enough for one uncompressed video at 7,680 × 4,320..
...and I thought I was the only one watching IMAX Digital on my 3.5" screen
My wife's iPhone has 8GB and she's got a lot of videos on there and a couple movies. I think that's really just fine and 16 would be great.
That's fine if she has built up her movies and music collection based on an 8Gb iPod. My collection is over 50Gb in iTunes so if it goes kaput, my only 'upgrade' would be 16Gb which would not be acceptable.
I don't believe the article really. Maybe 16Gb flash nano but not 6th gen iPod. I reckon it will use both flash and HDD. Maybe a version of OSX on the flash memory with a 120Gb HDD for the music/videos?
Since introducing the iPod nano in 2005, the company has slowly shifted all of its other handheld devices to the more reliable solid-state NAND flash memory.
Nice marketing chatter.
If they could put a 1 TB WD drive in the form factor of 1.8in drive it would last longer and cost less than the NAND flash memory.
We know NAND flash memory will fail far sooner after so many read/writes to memory over that of a conventional HDD.
...An obvious extension of flash memory would be as a replacement for hard disks. Flash memory does not have the mechanical limitations and latencies of hard drives, so the idea of a solid state drive, or SSD, is attractive when considering speed, noise, power consumption, and reliability.
There remain some aspects of flash-based SSD's that make the idea unattractive. Most importantly, the cost per gigabyte of flash memory remains significantly higher than that of platter-based hard drives. Although this ratio is decreasing rapidly for flash memory, it is not yet clear that flash memory will catch up to the capacities and affordability offered by platter-based storage. Still, research and development is sufficiently vigorous that it is not clear that it will not happen, either.
There is also some concern that the finite number of erase/write cycles of flash memory would render flash memory unable to support an operating system. This seems to be a decreasing issue as warranties on flash-based SSD's are approaching those of current hard drives.
This is rich. They determine that flash memory warranties being on-par with HDD absolves them from the reality that the memory will fail far sooner than a traditional drive. This wreaks of legal protectionism and not technical superiority.
I know I don't have to replace my iPod with every new release (my current iPod is in fact the first and only one I've owned). But say it dropped dead tomorrow and Apple announced new video iPods with a "whopping" 16GB of flash RAM storage along with the simultaneous discontinuation of the current 5G video iPod line.
A flash based device is a lot less likely to drop dead. Replacement parts and repair services are very easy to get though.
you're all being ridackulous. i used to think i had to carry around my entire itunes collection on my iPod. my last iPod was 20 gig clickwheel w/ b&w screen. when i bought it my itunes was around 18 gigs. now it's around 203.47 gigs, and i got rid of my 20 gig ipod for the 8 gig iPhone. i love it. i just autofill the thing every few nights while it's charging. [i keep the three or four albums i'm currently listening to on at all times - icky thump, shine on, and year zero]. there i no need for me to carry around everything i've got, but when my phone is in shuffle, i hear music i haven't heard in 15 years - everything from !!! to the zips.
They won't make a 16gb video ipod. That will give you like 10 movies and as many albums. But I also hear people saying "geeze, 16 gb? I'm archiving my entire 500+ DVD collection, wtf?!? 16gb is worthless!" This is precisely why itunes updates your ipod so seamlessly. And when was the last time you watched Rocky IV anyways? If you really want to watch some crappy movie instead of your son's baseball game, think about it ahead of time.
On a side note: you're not allowed to check your email on your ipone while simultaneously ordering drinks at the bar...even if you're a 40-something VP.
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. In any case HDDs also have failure modes that appear to be more common than originally thought based on some Google disk failure data. Smaller form factor drives used in a mobile environment fail faster.
Quote:
This is rich. They determine that flash memory warranties being on-par with HDD absolves them from the reality that the memory will fail far sooner than a traditional drive. This wreaks of legal protectionism and not technical superiority.
Wear leveling algorithims and larger capacities reduce the MTBF of flash devices to the point where its not as much an issue. ESPECIALLY for an iPod type device unless you delete all your songs and movies on a periodic basis for replacement. Even so, the duty cycle is very long even for something like a Shuffle.
I can see a market for this, but it obviously won't replace the existing hard-drive based iPods. Those people who are keeping their entire music collection on their iPod actually need those tens-of-GB capacities.
OTOH, people like me who keep everything on the desktop Mac, and transfer a subset into the iPod for playback on-the-go would probably appreciate it. The 4GB I have now, while fine for music, wouldn't be big enough for any significant amount of video. 16GB would solve that problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Since introducing the iPod nano in 2005, the company has slowly shifted all of its other handheld devices to the more reliable solid-state NAND flash memory.
Nice marketing chatter.
Flash is more reliable. It doesn't take physical damage when dropped or operated at high altitude, and no moving parts is always a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
We know NAND flash memory will fail far sooner after so many read/writes to memory over that of a conventional HDD.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing . The failure you're describing depends entirely on how many writes are performed. Read operations do not contribute at all to flash failure.
Typical flash memory is good for hundreds of thousands of write cycles. At 100,000 cycles, you could completely erase and repopulate your iPod five times a day and it would last over 50 years.
It's only when you try to use flash for rapidly-changing data (like swap files and caches) that the write-cycle limit causes any real problems. This would be an issue for a flash-based Mac, but is a complete non-issue for devices like iPods.
Wear leveling algorithms and larger capacities reduce the MTBF of flash devices to the point where its not as much an issue. ESPECIALLY for an iPod type device unless you delete all your songs and movies on a periodic basis for replacement. Even so, the duty cycle is very long even for something like a Shuffle.
I think you mean increase the MTBF. Bigger MTBF is supposed to be better.
That assumes wear-leveling works as proponents claim. If it is like they claim, then it would seem that every file that is written is really moved to a different place on every write. I'm not sure how the device keeps track of the number of writes. I really hadn't noticed any manufacturer specification with respect to wear-leveling.
But I do agree that it's hardly a problem with iPods, we're talking maybe one or two writes a day, and usually they are only a small fraction. With one complete write a day, even a low write rated flash (10k cycles) can hypothetically last 27 years without any of this wear-leveling voodoo, though flash ages a little faster than that, it's not specified to last longer than 10 years that I've heard.
16GB is fine for some people but not for others. This is exactly why there are various models with different sizes and features. Even if 16GB was really enough for everyone as some suggest, there will always be people who will think they need more and won't buy it (myself included).
I can see a 16GB nano being very popular. I can also see an entry level 16GB iPod video being popular. Neither is a replacement for the current iPod video models. It's a downgrade plain and simple.
I'm planning to upgrade my aging 4G 60GB iPod photo when the new line is available and I will not be buying anything smaller than 80GB no matter what cool features it may have.
I can see a 16GB nano being very popular. I can also see an entry level 16GB iPod video being popular. Neither is a replacement for the current iPod video models. It's a downgrade plain and simple.
It's not that simple, it's mixed, you have to be focussed only on one thing to see it so simply. Flash would offer a bit better battery battery life, a slimmer package and a much more durable construction.
you're all being ridackulous. i used to think i had to carry around my entire itunes collection on my iPod. my last iPod was 20 gig clickwheel w/ b&w screen. when i bought it my itunes was around 18 gigs. now it's around 203.47 gigs, and i got rid of my 20 gig ipod for the 8 gig iPhone. i love it. i just autofill the thing every few nights while it's charging. [i keep the three or four albums i'm currently listening to on at all times - icky thump, shine on, and year zero]. there i no need for me to carry around everything i've got, but when my phone is in shuffle, i hear music i haven't heard in 15 years - everything from !!! to the zips.
This may suit you, but many of us do want to carry our entire music collection in our pockets. There is nothing more frustrating than having the urge to hear a particular track and finding you don't have it with you.
Granted, this may not be an issue for US citizens who don't get many holidays, but when I'm on holiday in Greece for 2 or 3 weeks, twice a year, I want my complete music collection with me, not edited highlights.
Some people seem to think that their iPod should hold everything they own. As a book reader, I don't carry around a library , I carry around a book. 16 gig will hold a bunch of TV shows, a couple of full length movies and thousands of songs.
I think you could do a little planning and sync up what you are likely to need for the next week or so and leave the full collection on your computer. How many times are you going to watch the same movie on your iPod?
but when I'm on holiday in Greece for 2 or 3 weeks, twice a year, I want my complete music collection with me, not edited highlights.
Can you seriously live without your computer for 2-3 weeks? I'm not sure about those of you in Europe, but as an American, if I'm going on an extended vacation, I'm going to have my MacBook Pro along.
Maybe they're going to combine a smaller-storage video ipod with an iTunes rental service that doesn't allow you to keep your videos for ay length of time anyway.
Comments
16gb of flash,
I require at least 25 TBs of data. It should also be able to play movies at 7,680 × 4,320. The main problem with the whole plan is that 25 terrabyes is only enough for one uncompressed video at 7,680 × 4,320.
...and I thought I was the only one watching IMAX Digital on my 3.5" screen
My wife's iPhone has 8GB and she's got a lot of videos on there and a couple movies. I think that's really just fine and 16 would be great.
That's fine if she has built up her movies and music collection based on an 8Gb iPod. My collection is over 50Gb in iTunes so if it goes kaput, my only 'upgrade' would be 16Gb which would not be acceptable.
I don't believe the article really. Maybe 16Gb flash nano but not 6th gen iPod. I reckon it will use both flash and HDD. Maybe a version of OSX on the flash memory with a 120Gb HDD for the music/videos?
D
Nice marketing chatter.
If they could put a 1 TB WD drive in the form factor of 1.8in drive it would last longer and cost less than the NAND flash memory.
We know NAND flash memory will fail far sooner after so many read/writes to memory over that of a conventional HDD.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory
...An obvious extension of flash memory would be as a replacement for hard disks. Flash memory does not have the mechanical limitations and latencies of hard drives, so the idea of a solid state drive, or SSD, is attractive when considering speed, noise, power consumption, and reliability.
There remain some aspects of flash-based SSD's that make the idea unattractive. Most importantly, the cost per gigabyte of flash memory remains significantly higher than that of platter-based hard drives. Although this ratio is decreasing rapidly for flash memory, it is not yet clear that flash memory will catch up to the capacities and affordability offered by platter-based storage. Still, research and development is sufficiently vigorous that it is not clear that it will not happen, either.
There is also some concern that the finite number of erase/write cycles of flash memory would render flash memory unable to support an operating system. This seems to be a decreasing issue as warranties on flash-based SSD's are approaching those of current hard drives.
This is rich. They determine that flash memory warranties being on-par with HDD absolves them from the reality that the memory will fail far sooner than a traditional drive. This wreaks of legal protectionism and not technical superiority.
I know I don't have to replace my iPod with every new release (my current iPod is in fact the first and only one I've owned). But say it dropped dead tomorrow and Apple announced new video iPods with a "whopping" 16GB of flash RAM storage along with the simultaneous discontinuation of the current 5G video iPod line.
A flash based device is a lot less likely to drop dead. Replacement parts and repair services are very easy to get though.
I choose to ignore it entirely. (Except to post this, I guess.)
They won't make a 16gb video ipod. That will give you like 10 movies and as many albums. But I also hear people saying "geeze, 16 gb? I'm archiving my entire 500+ DVD collection, wtf?!? 16gb is worthless!" This is precisely why itunes updates your ipod so seamlessly. And when was the last time you watched Rocky IV anyways? If you really want to watch some crappy movie instead of your son's baseball game, think about it ahead of time.
On a side note: you're not allowed to check your email on your ipone while simultaneously ordering drinks at the bar...even if you're a 40-something VP.
If they could put a 1 TB WD drive in the form factor of 1.8in drive it would last longer and cost less than the NAND flash memory.
We know NAND flash memory will fail far sooner after so many read/writes to memory over that of a conventional HDD.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. In any case HDDs also have failure modes that appear to be more common than originally thought based on some Google disk failure data. Smaller form factor drives used in a mobile environment fail faster.
This is rich. They determine that flash memory warranties being on-par with HDD absolves them from the reality that the memory will fail far sooner than a traditional drive. This wreaks of legal protectionism and not technical superiority.
Wear leveling algorithims and larger capacities reduce the MTBF of flash devices to the point where its not as much an issue. ESPECIALLY for an iPod type device unless you delete all your songs and movies on a periodic basis for replacement. Even so, the duty cycle is very long even for something like a Shuffle.
Vinea
OTOH, people like me who keep everything on the desktop Mac, and transfer a subset into the iPod for playback on-the-go would probably appreciate it. The 4GB I have now, while fine for music, wouldn't be big enough for any significant amount of video. 16GB would solve that problem.
Since introducing the iPod nano in 2005, the company has slowly shifted all of its other handheld devices to the more reliable solid-state NAND flash memory.
Nice marketing chatter.
Flash is more reliable. It doesn't take physical damage when dropped or operated at high altitude, and no moving parts is always a good thing.
We know NAND flash memory will fail far sooner after so many read/writes to memory over that of a conventional HDD.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Typical flash memory is good for hundreds of thousands of write cycles. At 100,000 cycles, you could completely erase and repopulate your iPod five times a day and it would last over 50 years.
It's only when you try to use flash for rapidly-changing data (like swap files and caches) that the write-cycle limit causes any real problems. This would be an issue for a flash-based Mac, but is a complete non-issue for devices like iPods.
Wear leveling algorithms and larger capacities reduce the MTBF of flash devices to the point where its not as much an issue. ESPECIALLY for an iPod type device unless you delete all your songs and movies on a periodic basis for replacement. Even so, the duty cycle is very long even for something like a Shuffle.
I think you mean increase the MTBF. Bigger MTBF is supposed to be better.
That assumes wear-leveling works as proponents claim. If it is like they claim, then it would seem that every file that is written is really moved to a different place on every write. I'm not sure how the device keeps track of the number of writes. I really hadn't noticed any manufacturer specification with respect to wear-leveling.
But I do agree that it's hardly a problem with iPods, we're talking maybe one or two writes a day, and usually they are only a small fraction. With one complete write a day, even a low write rated flash (10k cycles) can hypothetically last 27 years without any of this wear-leveling voodoo, though flash ages a little faster than that, it's not specified to last longer than 10 years that I've heard.
I can see a 16GB nano being very popular. I can also see an entry level 16GB iPod video being popular. Neither is a replacement for the current iPod video models. It's a downgrade plain and simple.
I'm planning to upgrade my aging 4G 60GB iPod photo when the new line is available and I will not be buying anything smaller than 80GB no matter what cool features it may have.
I can see a 16GB nano being very popular. I can also see an entry level 16GB iPod video being popular. Neither is a replacement for the current iPod video models. It's a downgrade plain and simple.
It's not that simple, it's mixed, you have to be focussed only on one thing to see it so simply. Flash would offer a bit better battery battery life, a slimmer package and a much more durable construction.
you're all being ridackulous. i used to think i had to carry around my entire itunes collection on my iPod. my last iPod was 20 gig clickwheel w/ b&w screen. when i bought it my itunes was around 18 gigs. now it's around 203.47 gigs, and i got rid of my 20 gig ipod for the 8 gig iPhone. i love it. i just autofill the thing every few nights while it's charging. [i keep the three or four albums i'm currently listening to on at all times - icky thump, shine on, and year zero]. there i no need for me to carry around everything i've got, but when my phone is in shuffle, i hear music i haven't heard in 15 years - everything from !!! to the zips.
This may suit you, but many of us do want to carry our entire music collection in our pockets. There is nothing more frustrating than having the urge to hear a particular track and finding you don't have it with you.
Granted, this may not be an issue for US citizens who don't get many holidays, but when I'm on holiday in Greece for 2 or 3 weeks, twice a year, I want my complete music collection with me, not edited highlights.
I think you could do a little planning and sync up what you are likely to need for the next week or so and leave the full collection on your computer. How many times are you going to watch the same movie on your iPod?
but when I'm on holiday in Greece for 2 or 3 weeks, twice a year, I want my complete music collection with me, not edited highlights.
Can you seriously live without your computer for 2-3 weeks? I'm not sure about those of you in Europe, but as an American, if I'm going on an extended vacation, I'm going to have my MacBook Pro along.
m
Could they sell a 30 or 32GB SDD version for $399 ?
I'm thinking 40GB 4" touch-screen for $299 and 100GB 4" touch-screen for $399. Both with some kind of flash-assisted 1.8" moving hard drive.
No, they can't.