What are these prices? Retail or distributor? Because Apple buys as a distributor or even better. They do not buy one single screen for instance; they buy 100 million screens at once! Sure, the price is not the same per unit!
I think the problem with HDD in a Touch is with WiFi: the disk interfers with the reception. Not insurmountable, but maybe in a small form factor. In a notebook, the antenna is in the LED cover, the disk is in the base to give physical separation.
As to whether we'll see another interation of the classic, I don't think it takes much R&D engineering to move to a larger capacity HDD in the same form factor. The classic software seems to ride on the nano coattails, and with no new industrial design (remember last year's storage bump only for the whole ipod line?) you could probably see one, two or even three years of "milking" the existing design.
The real problem in my opinion is the number of models: I can see offering only one capacity, only one color at some time.
It doesn't say anything about Apple dumping HD's, just that the classic probably won't be a huge seller and won't be around that long.
Given that the iPod is the only model that can hold most music fans' entire music collection, I disagree. I think the classic will continue to sell well.
I just got an 80GB classic. Had there been a 32GB Nano, I may have purchased one as I'm using 25GB now.
There's definitely a phase-out of Hard Drive iPods, i mean...there's only one model left.
There will still be hard drive based iPods as long as flash memory can't semi-affordably reach the 40-60GB range. I'd give it 2 or 3 years, maybe more though.
Given that the iPod is the only model that can hold most music fans' entire music collection, I disagree. I think the classic will continue to sell well.
I just got an 80GB classic. Had there been a 32GB Nano, I may have purchased one as I'm using 25GB now.
Given that the nano already outsold the HD based models by a large factor, why would you think that would change with the classic? The huge sales of the nano seem to indicate that many (most?) ipod users either have small collections or don't consider it that important to have the whole collection on at once. "Continuing" to sell well implies that it's selling well now - it sells well enough to keep as a product, but nothing close to nano sales.
I'm not saying it will sell poorly, I'm just saying that sales will be much less than sales of the flash based models, which has been the case for quite some time.
I really don't think the Classic is necessarily a stop-gap measure. If it was, why would they put so much work into remaking the user interface? It's not like the multi-touch devices and it's considerably different than the previous iPod iterations. What we've heard suggests that Apple moved away from Pixio or whatever to something else developed in-house that's not OS X or Pixio. That doesn't seem to be a smart thing to do unless they stick with it for a while.
I think a HDD version of Touch would be nice, it's so thin that they could have made it as thick as the iPhone and fit in the hard drive and a bigger battery.
I think it's a little too soon to start giving the obits for the HDD iPods, it's probably going to be good for a couple more years. Any predictions beyond that will become even more tenuous though, that depends on how the costs and capacities advance on both types of storage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Stevenson
I think the problem with HDD in a Touch is with WiFi: the disk interfers with the reception. Not insurmountable, but maybe in a small form factor. In a notebook, the antenna is in the LED cover, the disk is in the base to give physical separation.
There's definitely a phase-out of Hard Drive iPods, i mean...there's only one model left.
That's kind of a long phase-out. There's been only been one model of the HDD iPod for over two years now, but it still hasn't been dropped or phased out yet.
If that's all the source said, it does seem more like they're saying a HD version of the touch could be coming. What they say doesn't imply that they're dumping HD at all, it seems like AI is jumping to conclusions unrelated to their comments.
A HD iPod touch ?? - presumably with a Mini-HDMI port - that would be cool.
Everyone keeps saying that there are very few people who want/need to get their entire music collection on their iPod. Or their entire collection will fit in a smaller, flash-based iPod. But Apple is more and more pushing selling video from iTunes. And I think we all agree that higher quality (HD?) video is soon coming. At the current resolution, a one hour video is 700-800 MB. Higher quality video is only going to make the file size larger, probably well over 1 GB/hour.
So take a 16 MB touch, or worse yet a 8 GB nano...the OS and apps on the touch take a little less than 1 GB, I think. Now add a couple high quality feature length movies, a dozen or so episodes of your favorite TV shows, and a few video podcasts. All of a sudden, there's not a whole lot of room left for music.
My music alone nearly fills my 15GB 3rd generation iPod, and it's all at either 128 or 160 kb/s. I'd like to bump up the bit rate a bit if I had more space. I really like the touch, but it's useless to me because I don't want to be constantly "managing" my music because it won't all fit. I was going to get a classic, but the combination of slow interface, skipping music (due to the wasted processor/hard drive cycles for the new, slow interface), and crappy video out support ($49 cable needed in place of the $19 cable with the previous generation), and broken support for the camera connector.
I guess what I'm saying is that if the current iPod classic represents the last of the HHD players, and if Apple isn't going to fix the interface and restore functionality it took away, I'm screwed because it'll be at least 2-3 more years before flash-based iPods are anywhere near the capacity that would prompt me to replace my current iPod.
Certainly when you look at the iPod Nano, then the iPod Touch & iPhone... the iPod Classic looks a little dinosaur-ish. However.. I bought the latest dinosaur, because the hard disk space is important to me for files I move around.
Whether Apple keeps the HDD models will depend on their plans for the integrated "whole system", I believe, rather than what an iPod should be
There are 3 integrated Mac/iPod features I could see them playing with..
1) Time Machine backup of home directory to a users iPod
2) portable home directory
3) music & movies "master storage" on the iPod
In more detail:
1) Time Machine backup of home directory to a users iPod
Why not plug in my iPod and have it automatically backup my home directory and unique applications. Even on HDD models, it might have to skip movies to fit it in. But what a great backup.
2) portable home directory
We know Apple was talking about having your Home directory on any Mac you plugged your iPod into. I'd like that. (Better yet, integrate it with #1 so that my iPod is a backup AND portable home directory.)
3) music & movies "master storage" on the iPod
I'd say that half the laptop users out there have a hard disk smaller than they'd like. That's the half whose laptop is more than 1.5years old . The newest iPod HDDs are relatively huge.
... I'd rather have ALL my music and photos on my iPod, and then sync a smaller amount down to my laptop. That'd free up alot of space on my laptop.
So again... yeah the iPod Classic looks too big etc, and technologically is no leap forward... but Apple is the only company that might be able to make the iPod do something more to improve our computing experience too. (ooh... actually, I guess MS/Zune could do the same?). Then again, perhaps Apple thinks online storage will suffice for all the above.
...Apple is more and more pushing selling video from iTunes....add a couple high quality feature length movies, a dozen or so episodes of your favorite TV shows, and a few video podcasts. All of a sudden, there's not a whole lot of room left for music.
My music alone nearly fills my 15GB 3rd generation iPod, and it's all at either 128 or 160 kb/s. I'd like to bump up the bit rate a bit if I had more space.
I'm with you - these were my contentions earlier on. Some in the thread point to their collections and say there's no need for more space while others point out the diminishing HDD iPod market share and limited number of models. Frankly, neither make a bit of difference in an era well past us seeing low bitrate audio needs satisfied by flash solutions and at some point in time before any of us truly see a mobile video solution that will be embraced both in the home as TiVo currently is and plugged into cars, planes, hotels, and conference rooms for the enjoyment of personalized video multimedia content. Discs don't solve the problem and will be superceded by a drive of some kind, form factors as big as a TiVO (or even Apple TV) won't do it because they're not portable enough, the network might solve the problem if common carriers give us all easy access to our home content and home machines make it easy to set up.
The smart money's on an iPod connection (and soon enough a very high speed, integrated wireless stack) in the car, plane, hotel, and conference room that will give us all ubiquitous access to our content through the video and audio equipment already on hand, which soon enough could mean a 20 inch HD screen in planes, trains, and cars, a 60 inch cheapo HD flatscreen in a hotel and who knows how big in the office.
So again, where's the HDD iPod going? It's definitely not leaving the iPod lineup anytime soon, regardless of AI putting words in iSuppli's mouth in this article or anyone basing their opinions on what they're using now, any more than any of us knew we'd be committing so much of our time and productivity to computing and the net back in 1975. In the immortal words of the dude on 'How I Met Your Mother':
I do think we will see an iPod Touch with a 200 GB hard drive by September 2008, mostly because by then battery technology will be good enough to do this. With a 200 GB hard drive, there's more than enough space to store multiple movies.
Wouldn't it be great to someday see a 200 GB iPod with FLAC support? - then, we'd finally get a digital music player with the capacity and ability to play music at the same level of quality (or better, if artists master directly to FLAC in the studio) than during the CD age... At this point it still feels like the transition from CD to MP3 is like that from LP to cassette - much more convenient, much crappier sound quality...
Wouldn't it be great to someday see a 200 GB iPod with FLAC support? - then, we'd finally get a digital music player with the capacity and ability to play music at the same level of quality (or better, if artists master directly to FLAC in the studio) than during the CD age... At this point it still feels like the transition from CD to MP3 is like that from LP to cassette - much more convenient, much crappier sound quality...
Personally I can't tell any difference so long as files use at least 160kbps MP3 or 128kbps AAC, I suspect most consumers can't either.
I really don't think the Classic is necessarily a stop-gap measure. If it was, why would they put so much work into remaking the user interface?
I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. The same interface is on the nano as well, which sells more units. They basically did the work to update the nano interface, as long as the nano and classic have similar os and CPU, putting it on the classic was probably hardly any work at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Everyone keeps saying that there are very few people who want/need to get their entire music collection on their iPod. Or their entire collection will fit in a smaller, flash-based iPod. But Apple is more and more pushing selling video from iTunes.
Apple can push all they want, but the sales numbers speak for themselves. People are buying far more of the smaller capacity, flash based units. Video is ramping up, but flash sizes are ramping up as well. Not to mention that with video, people may be even more inclined to only keep a few things on the iPod at a time, especially with battery life.
It's not that there's no need for more space, it's that the sales show that many people are content with less space - they could buy the one with more space but are choosing the smaller one instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
I was going to get a classic, but the combination of slow interface, skipping music (due to the wasted processor/hard drive cycles for the new, slow interface), and crappy video out support ($49 cable needed in place of the $19 cable with the previous generation), and broken support for the camera connector.
First, are you aware that there's a firmware update for the new iPods that speeds up the interface considerably?
And second, the new "crappy" video cable isn't $49, it's that price for the cable plus a charger. It sucks that they're not selling the cable separately, but the package is the same price as the old cable plus the charger.
We'll probably never see FLAC support since it's redundant, apple already supports uncompressed audio and apple lossless for those who want CD quality.
they reworked the iPod interface because last time they were sued by creative, but yeah iPod classic is not a stopgap. HDD is long from gone until flash is feasible for carrying at least a hundred movies at an affordable price.
besides what is the problem with hdd ipods coexisting with flash ipods as long as they are all profitable for apple?
they reworked the iPod interface because last time they were sued by creative, but yeah iPod classic is not a stopgap. HDD is long from gone until flash is feasible for carrying at least a hundred movies at an affordable price.
Don't you know Apple settled and got the rights to that?
Don't you know Apple settled and got the rights to that?
The interface they were sued over is still the same, they just added moving backgrounds to the right side of it... which I honestly do kinda like. Reminds me of music I have long forgot about.
Don't you know Apple settled and got the rights to that?
yeah I read they paid creative 100 million. i just figured that changing the interface had also a little bit to do with "let's make it different and more 'ours' so we don't run into the same problems again later on"
Comments
As to whether we'll see another interation of the classic, I don't think it takes much R&D engineering to move to a larger capacity HDD in the same form factor. The classic software seems to ride on the nano coattails, and with no new industrial design (remember last year's storage bump only for the whole ipod line?) you could probably see one, two or even three years of "milking" the existing design.
The real problem in my opinion is the number of models: I can see offering only one capacity, only one color at some time.
Maybe they're just happy with the insides the way they are.
It doesn't say anything about Apple dumping HD's, just that the classic probably won't be a huge seller and won't be around that long.
Given that the iPod is the only model that can hold most music fans' entire music collection, I disagree. I think the classic will continue to sell well.
I just got an 80GB classic. Had there been a 32GB Nano, I may have purchased one as I'm using 25GB now.
There will still be hard drive based iPods as long as flash memory can't semi-affordably reach the 40-60GB range. I'd give it 2 or 3 years, maybe more though.
Given that the iPod is the only model that can hold most music fans' entire music collection, I disagree. I think the classic will continue to sell well.
I just got an 80GB classic. Had there been a 32GB Nano, I may have purchased one as I'm using 25GB now.
Given that the nano already outsold the HD based models by a large factor, why would you think that would change with the classic? The huge sales of the nano seem to indicate that many (most?) ipod users either have small collections or don't consider it that important to have the whole collection on at once. "Continuing" to sell well implies that it's selling well now - it sells well enough to keep as a product, but nothing close to nano sales.
I'm not saying it will sell poorly, I'm just saying that sales will be much less than sales of the flash based models, which has been the case for quite some time.
I think a HDD version of Touch would be nice, it's so thin that they could have made it as thick as the iPhone and fit in the hard drive and a bigger battery.
I think it's a little too soon to start giving the obits for the HDD iPods, it's probably going to be good for a couple more years. Any predictions beyond that will become even more tenuous though, that depends on how the costs and capacities advance on both types of storage.
I think the problem with HDD in a Touch is with WiFi: the disk interfers with the reception. Not insurmountable, but maybe in a small form factor. In a notebook, the antenna is in the LED cover, the disk is in the base to give physical separation.
The drive's mechanisms are pretty well shielded.
There's definitely a phase-out of Hard Drive iPods, i mean...there's only one model left.
That's kind of a long phase-out. There's been only been one model of the HDD iPod for over two years now, but it still hasn't been dropped or phased out yet.
Cole, you're right, I misunderstood your point.
If that's all the source said, it does seem more like they're saying a HD version of the touch could be coming. What they say doesn't imply that they're dumping HD at all, it seems like AI is jumping to conclusions unrelated to their comments.
A HD iPod touch ?? - presumably with a Mini-HDMI port - that would be cool.
So take a 16 MB touch, or worse yet a 8 GB nano...the OS and apps on the touch take a little less than 1 GB, I think. Now add a couple high quality feature length movies, a dozen or so episodes of your favorite TV shows, and a few video podcasts. All of a sudden, there's not a whole lot of room left for music.
My music alone nearly fills my 15GB 3rd generation iPod, and it's all at either 128 or 160 kb/s. I'd like to bump up the bit rate a bit if I had more space. I really like the touch, but it's useless to me because I don't want to be constantly "managing" my music because it won't all fit. I was going to get a classic, but the combination of slow interface, skipping music (due to the wasted processor/hard drive cycles for the new, slow interface), and crappy video out support ($49 cable needed in place of the $19 cable with the previous generation), and broken support for the camera connector.
I guess what I'm saying is that if the current iPod classic represents the last of the HHD players, and if Apple isn't going to fix the interface and restore functionality it took away, I'm screwed because it'll be at least 2-3 more years before flash-based iPods are anywhere near the capacity that would prompt me to replace my current iPod.
Whether Apple keeps the HDD models will depend on their plans for the integrated "whole system", I believe, rather than what an iPod should be
There are 3 integrated Mac/iPod features I could see them playing with..
1) Time Machine backup of home directory to a users iPod
2) portable home directory
3) music & movies "master storage" on the iPod
In more detail:
1) Time Machine backup of home directory to a users iPod
Why not plug in my iPod and have it automatically backup my home directory and unique applications. Even on HDD models, it might have to skip movies to fit it in. But what a great backup.
2) portable home directory
We know Apple was talking about having your Home directory on any Mac you plugged your iPod into. I'd like that. (Better yet, integrate it with #1 so that my iPod is a backup AND portable home directory.)
3) music & movies "master storage" on the iPod
I'd say that half the laptop users out there have a hard disk smaller than they'd like. That's the half whose laptop is more than 1.5years old
... I'd rather have ALL my music and photos on my iPod, and then sync a smaller amount down to my laptop. That'd free up alot of space on my laptop.
So again... yeah the iPod Classic looks too big etc, and technologically is no leap forward... but Apple is the only company that might be able to make the iPod do something more to improve our computing experience too. (ooh... actually, I guess MS/Zune could do the same?). Then again, perhaps Apple thinks online storage will suffice for all the above.
...Apple is more and more pushing selling video from iTunes....add a couple high quality feature length movies, a dozen or so episodes of your favorite TV shows, and a few video podcasts. All of a sudden, there's not a whole lot of room left for music.
My music alone nearly fills my 15GB 3rd generation iPod, and it's all at either 128 or 160 kb/s. I'd like to bump up the bit rate a bit if I had more space.
I'm with you - these were my contentions earlier on. Some in the thread point to their collections and say there's no need for more space while others point out the diminishing HDD iPod market share and limited number of models. Frankly, neither make a bit of difference in an era well past us seeing low bitrate audio needs satisfied by flash solutions and at some point in time before any of us truly see a mobile video solution that will be embraced both in the home as TiVo currently is and plugged into cars, planes, hotels, and conference rooms for the enjoyment of personalized video multimedia content. Discs don't solve the problem and will be superceded by a drive of some kind, form factors as big as a TiVO (or even Apple TV) won't do it because they're not portable enough, the network might solve the problem if common carriers give us all easy access to our home content and home machines make it easy to set up.
The smart money's on an iPod connection (and soon enough a very high speed, integrated wireless stack) in the car, plane, hotel, and conference room that will give us all ubiquitous access to our content through the video and audio equipment already on hand, which soon enough could mean a 20 inch HD screen in planes, trains, and cars, a 60 inch cheapo HD flatscreen in a hotel and who knows how big in the office.
So again, where's the HDD iPod going? It's definitely not leaving the iPod lineup anytime soon, regardless of AI putting words in iSuppli's mouth in this article or anyone basing their opinions on what they're using now, any more than any of us knew we'd be committing so much of our time and productivity to computing and the net back in 1975. In the immortal words of the dude on 'How I Met Your Mother':
"Wait for it... wait for it..."
Wouldn't it be great to someday see a 200 GB iPod with FLAC support? - then, we'd finally get a digital music player with the capacity and ability to play music at the same level of quality (or better, if artists master directly to FLAC in the studio) than during the CD age... At this point it still feels like the transition from CD to MP3 is like that from LP to cassette - much more convenient, much crappier sound quality...
Personally I can't tell any difference so long as files use at least 160kbps MP3 or 128kbps AAC, I suspect most consumers can't either.
If it's a concern to you just use Apple Lossless
I really don't think the Classic is necessarily a stop-gap measure. If it was, why would they put so much work into remaking the user interface?
I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. The same interface is on the nano as well, which sells more units. They basically did the work to update the nano interface, as long as the nano and classic have similar os and CPU, putting it on the classic was probably hardly any work at all.
Everyone keeps saying that there are very few people who want/need to get their entire music collection on their iPod. Or their entire collection will fit in a smaller, flash-based iPod. But Apple is more and more pushing selling video from iTunes.
Apple can push all they want, but the sales numbers speak for themselves. People are buying far more of the smaller capacity, flash based units. Video is ramping up, but flash sizes are ramping up as well. Not to mention that with video, people may be even more inclined to only keep a few things on the iPod at a time, especially with battery life.
It's not that there's no need for more space, it's that the sales show that many people are content with less space - they could buy the one with more space but are choosing the smaller one instead.
I was going to get a classic, but the combination of slow interface, skipping music (due to the wasted processor/hard drive cycles for the new, slow interface), and crappy video out support ($49 cable needed in place of the $19 cable with the previous generation), and broken support for the camera connector.
First, are you aware that there's a firmware update for the new iPods that speeds up the interface considerably?
And second, the new "crappy" video cable isn't $49, it's that price for the cable plus a charger. It sucks that they're not selling the cable separately, but the package is the same price as the old cable plus the charger.
We'll probably never see FLAC support since it's redundant, apple already supports uncompressed audio and apple lossless for those who want CD quality.
besides what is the problem with hdd ipods coexisting with flash ipods as long as they are all profitable for apple?
they reworked the iPod interface because last time they were sued by creative, but yeah iPod classic is not a stopgap. HDD is long from gone until flash is feasible for carrying at least a hundred movies at an affordable price.
Don't you know Apple settled and got the rights to that?
Don't you know Apple settled and got the rights to that?
The interface they were sued over is still the same, they just added moving backgrounds to the right side of it... which I honestly do kinda like. Reminds me of music I have long forgot about.
Don't you know Apple settled and got the rights to that?
yeah I read they paid creative 100 million. i just figured that changing the interface had also a little bit to do with "let's make it different and more 'ours' so we don't run into the same problems again later on"