But why did Rose say support in 10.5.6, not 10.5.5. Since 10.5.5 should be out in September, 10.5.6 in October or November. To me, this prediction adds credence because I don't think the new notebooks until then as Intel seems to be behind schedule and may still be having issues with the the X4500. This may mean updates for backing up data to BR in iLife and iMovie mastering, but more importantly it means updates to the Pro apps to support full BRD support. This is something that is completely lacking for professionals who want to use Mac.
I don't see Blue Ray support in 10.5.6, I see it as a big selling point to upgrade to Snow Leopard 10.6. With a major OS release in a year or so, Apple won't be doing much but fixing bugs in 10.5.
I'm curious how you?and everyone for that matter?established your prices. Especially the 32GB iPod Touch.
Well I don't think that prices will drop as much as many people say and I think that the 32gb iPod touch will be 399 because that would allow Apple to introduce an iPhone before the holidays that was a 32gb for 399 also.
I think people are being way to aggressive with the new iPod prices.
shuffle 2gb-49
shuffle 4gb-69
nano 4gb-99
nano 8gb-149
touch 8gb-199
touch 16gb-299
touch 32gb-399
touch 64gb-499
classic 160gb-299
Keeping the Nano's with their current storage and just dropping their prices would be a good idea, especially if the Touch goes to $199. That way there won't be a 16gb Nano competing with an 8gb Touch.
Well I don't think that prices will drop as much as many people say and I think that the 32gb iPod touch will be 399 because that would allow Apple to introduce an iPhone before the holidays that was a 32gb for 399 also.
Very very good idea. But bumps up to close with the iPod Touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Rose was wrong before, twice. I ain't believing anything until Apple releases them.
As for iTunes, it needs books and a standard "Apple" book reader for the devices. (not separate book apps via the App store, but a whole separate thing). Book Reader.app & Book Store.app
And built in lyrics support. As for the look of iTunes, meh.. that would be a bonus I guess.
Nano:
No home screen = no home button.
Play and pause of music has a physical button still.
And to go next track double-tap the play/pause button.
As for scrolling lists, it's obvious.
And... physical volume buttons.
But, that would be too intelligent and idea, wouldn't it.
Well I don't think that prices will drop as much as many people say and I think that the 32gb iPod touch will be 399 because that would allow Apple to introduce an iPhone before the holidays that was a 32gb for 399 also.
I believe personally that Apple with not touch (pun unintended) the current iPhone 3G lineup until MacWorld January 2009, where there it might get a 32GB or more likely, 3MP improved camera, 2.5 software update, etc.
I think the current nano is perfection in its size and format as a music player. My advice? Keep the music player small, let the Touch or similar device bridge people into video. There are lots of people that want a perfect music player, or a perfect video/app device... there are too many ways to screw up trying to do both...
I'd make a wee Touch the same size (or smaller) as the current Nano. That would be cool.
My perfect music player holds my entire library. That means it should have at least 120GB for what I have now... plus room for expansion and occasional movies.
That's why if I could only own one, it would be a Classic, among the current offerings. It's all about the music.
I am planning to buy an iPod Touch for web browsing though...
I could use the Touch for videos too, clearing up space on my Classic for more music.
I don't know WHY would Apple abandon the current design of the nano--it's actually a nice design to start with. They should keep the current design and just up the memory to 16 and 32 GB storage capacity.
Rose is a tool who just throws enough spaghetti against the wall, hoping something sticks.
Remember, he's the same guy who said he had seen and used the iPhone a few months before it came out - and he said it had a slide out keyboard and 2 batteries amongst other silly features that never existed.
Rose is a tool who just throws enough spaghetti against the wall, hoping something sticks.
Remember, he's the same guy who said he had seen and used the iPhone a few months before it came out - and he said it had a slide out keyboard and 2 batteries amongst other silly features that never existed.
Could he have been lucky enough, to have tried the iPhone II 3G - iPhone Deluxe - iPhone business edition?
I am very curious how people are foreseeing a 64GB Touch for just s few hundred dollars. What is the rationale behind the process? What chips are they using? How are they are getting the prices so cheap or do you think they will loose hundreds on each Touch sale?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
Whatever comes about, there will be something with 160GB or more.
I can't find any proof that there are 1.8" that exceed 160GB right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoMan01
I don't know WHY would Apple abandon the current design of the nano--it's actually a nice design to start with.
They have changed the design every year and the feelings about are mixed.
A lot of people I know buy the classic and use it as a portable hard drive (sports photogs). The rest (that I know) don't want to lose their games! It's still a fun little gaming machine (to a degree). That supposed Nano's design is hard to produce without physical errors and the curved screen (to protect, I'm assuming) is just too superfluous and easily damaged.....
That has to be one of the least plausible mock ups in quite a while.
This looks three times longer than it is wide. It's practically a knife! And combine that with sharp corners and you have a device designed to cause physical injury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Yes, from the photo is looks like it is no longer nano, i.e. small. But it is hard to tell scale from a photo.
I held up my first gen nano to the screen, the aspect ratio of the overall object is about the same. The 2ng gen nano had sharp corners on the ends too, maybe not that tight of a radius on the ends. I don't think it's unsafe.
The click wheel is pushed towards the end and the screen extended. I see no issues with the shape preventing that mock-up from being the same size as the original nano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande
That mockup (in the original post) is one of the most ridiculous mockups I've seen in a while.
Apple would never release something so hideous.
I'm now moving towards the possibility that it could be real. There's been enough times where Apple designs were leaked and panned by the Apple forums, but turned out to be the real deal. For example, people hated the fatboy nano and the aluminum desktop keyboards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
Hard drive consume batteries big time. So do big bright touch screens. The only reason that the iPod Classic has decent battery life with the hard drive is because it doesn't also have a big fancy touch screen.
The days of hard drives in iPods will be over in a few years. Give it 5 more years, and we'll be saying the same about laptops.
Others seem to be pushing an optimistic timeline, I wonder if yours is a bit conservative.
Hard drives aren't that bad though. SSDs don't necessarily save much power, the last round showed some that were worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
I believe personally that Apple with not touch (pun unintended) the current iPhone 3G lineup until MacWorld January 2009, where there it might get a 32GB or more likely, 3MP improved camera, 2.5 software update, etc.
Larger capacity and improved software is possible. The memory depends on what manufacturers can produce that drops into the product with no other circuitry changes. As for software, that's up to Apple.
A better camera in the current shape is unlikely. The phones bandied about with better cameras are thicker because a better camera needs to be larger, larger lens to collect more light, larger sensors to get larger photosites for better signal to noise ratio, and the depth of the camera scales up too. More megapixels by itself would generally mean worse low light performance, and I doubt a pinhole lens can benefit with more megapixels. The often noted N95 has a good camera, but it's also more than 2cm thick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I can't find any proof that there are 1.8" that exceed 160GB right now.
It might be a long shot, but Toshiba and Apple might have a deal where Apple gets the first ones, they might not need to promote them yet or even have a deal to keep quiet about them. I do think this is a plausible explanation. I don't think Apple is above just dumping the Classic line or keeping them the same though.
Quote:
They have changed the design every year and the feelings about are mixed.
The only significant complaints that I remember are with "fatboy". Some complained that the gen 1 nano lanyard wouldn't work with gen 2 (but do with fatboy), but I don't remember any other notable complaints about the looks of either gen 1 or gen 2.
People who think that the Classic will be killed without a 160GB replacement are smoking something.
I agree, well I don't know about smoking, but I agree.
The classic is still a great design and a solid device. It's really the perfect music player for those with larger music collections who like to carry it with them.
The click wheel is pushed towards the end and the screen extended. I see no issues with the shape preventing that mock-up from being the same size as the original nano.
I agree that it doesn't have to be as elongated as the Zune version. I think it may be a little longer than the 2G Nano, but not much. The Flash-based Zune is too long; I don't think Apple would produce an item with that aesthetic, especially since it would look like they are copying the Zune.
Quote:
I'm now moving towards the possibility that it could be real. There's been enough times where Apple designs were leaked and panned by the Apple forums, but turned out to be the real deal. For example, people hated the fatboy nano and the aluminum desktop keyboards.
I hated the fatty Zune until I saw it on person. Now I like it, but I do think the design it's as easy to hold in the hand. If you mean "real" as in landscape mode will require a 90° turn, I think so. If you mean "real" as in a curved front, I highly doubt it.
PS: Why can't I find the degree symbol using the Alt key on my keyboard?
Quote:
Hard drives aren't that bad though. SSDs don't necessarily save much power, the last round showed some that were worse.
The studies have shown that the real power saving come from the using larger HDDs that spin faster, not from the 1.8" drives used in the iPod Classic and MBA.
Quote:
It might be a long shot, but Toshiba and Apple might have a deal where Apple gets the first ones, they might not need to promote them yet or even have a deal to keep quiet about them. I do think this is a plausible explanation.
They have done it before and since there is a single-platter 120GB drive the potential for a 240GB two-platter drive seems possible. Best guess, I don't think that the Classic is important enough to Apple or Toshiba to warranty such a deal. With Flash coming closer to the 1.8" HDD capacity perhaps Toshiba is just investing less resources to these drives. Do they even make the 1" HDDs anymore now that Flash can store considerably more in the same space.
Quote:
I don't think Apple is above just dumping the Classic line or keeping them the same though.
They aren't above anything that doesn't make them money which is why I think they won't dump it. At very least they might not change a think, but I thin a price drop is in order this time around. The interest may not be huge compared to other iPods but the for those who want a large capacity HDD for holding all their media the interest is strong.
Quote:
The only significant complaints that I remember are with "fatboy". Some complained that the gen 1 nano lanyard wouldn't work with gen 2 (but do with fatboy), but I don't remember any other notable complaints about the looks of either gen 1 or gen 2.
My bad, the last part of my comment was meant to be, "...and the feelings about [the fatty Nano] are mixed. I am getting bad at not proof reading my replies well enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
It doesn't really.
<list>
I think replacing the Nano with a touchscreen would be a huge mistake. While the capacitance touchscreen has many pluses it also has a few minuses. The most notable are the lack of tactile response. What makes the iPhone/Touch I think would ruin the Nano.
Comments
shuffle 2gb-49
shuffle 4gb-69
nano 4gb-99
nano 8gb-149
touch 8gb-199
touch 16gb-299
touch 32gb-399
touch 64gb-499
classic 160gb-299
I think people are being way to aggressive with the new iPod prices.
shuffle 2gb-49
shuffle 4gb-69
nano 4gb-99
nano 8gb-149
touch 8gb-199
touch 16gb-299
touch 32gb-399
touch 64gb-499
classic 160gb-299
I'm curious how you—and everyone for that matter—established your prices. Especially the 64GB iPod Touch.
But why did Rose say support in 10.5.6, not 10.5.5. Since 10.5.5 should be out in September, 10.5.6 in October or November. To me, this prediction adds credence because I don't think the new notebooks until then as Intel seems to be behind schedule and may still be having issues with the the X4500. This may mean updates for backing up data to BR in iLife and iMovie mastering, but more importantly it means updates to the Pro apps to support full BRD support. This is something that is completely lacking for professionals who want to use Mac.
I don't see Blue Ray support in 10.5.6, I see it as a big selling point to upgrade to Snow Leopard 10.6. With a major OS release in a year or so, Apple won't be doing much but fixing bugs in 10.5.
I'm curious how you?and everyone for that matter?established your prices. Especially the 32GB iPod Touch.
Well I don't think that prices will drop as much as many people say and I think that the 32gb iPod touch will be 399 because that would allow Apple to introduce an iPhone before the holidays that was a 32gb for 399 also.
I think people are being way to aggressive with the new iPod prices.
shuffle 2gb-49
shuffle 4gb-69
nano 4gb-99
nano 8gb-149
touch 8gb-199
touch 16gb-299
touch 32gb-399
touch 64gb-499
classic 160gb-299
Keeping the Nano's with their current storage and just dropping their prices would be a good idea, especially if the Touch goes to $199. That way there won't be a 16gb Nano competing with an 8gb Touch.
Well I don't think that prices will drop as much as many people say and I think that the 32gb iPod touch will be 399 because that would allow Apple to introduce an iPhone before the holidays that was a 32gb for 399 also.
Oops, i meant the 64GB model.
Rose was wrong before, twice. I ain't believing anything until Apple releases them.
As for iTunes, it needs books and a standard "Apple" book reader for the devices. (not separate book apps via the App store, but a whole separate thing). Book Reader.app & Book Store.app
And built in lyrics support. As for the look of iTunes, meh.. that would be a bonus I guess.
Nano:
No home screen = no home button.
Play and pause of music has a physical button still.
And to go next track double-tap the play/pause button.
As for scrolling lists, it's obvious.
And... physical volume buttons.
But, that would be too intelligent and idea, wouldn't it.
iPod Classic: Phased out
iPod Shuffle: Only two models, 2GB & 4GB
iPod Nano: New redesign, away from phatboy to slim again
8GB and 16GB.... interesting redesigns
iPod Touch: As is, minor cosmetic changes
Remember there is huge limits to how much iPhones one can get
Therefore Touch is still very important
32GB and 64GB (64GB for those iPod Classic potential users to "switch")
------------
To streamline R&D iPod Nano will use some sort of OS X OS. Perhaps to get
iTunes App Store Games?
No. actually this is too radical. Nano uses minor upgrade to previous nano OS.
------------
Well I don't think that prices will drop as much as many people say and I think that the 32gb iPod touch will be 399 because that would allow Apple to introduce an iPhone before the holidays that was a 32gb for 399 also.
I believe personally that Apple with not touch (pun unintended) the current iPhone 3G lineup until MacWorld January 2009, where there it might get a 32GB or more likely, 3MP improved camera, 2.5 software update, etc.
I think the current nano is perfection in its size and format as a music player. My advice? Keep the music player small, let the Touch or similar device bridge people into video. There are lots of people that want a perfect music player, or a perfect video/app device... there are too many ways to screw up trying to do both...
I'd make a wee Touch the same size (or smaller) as the current Nano. That would be cool.
My perfect music player holds my entire library. That means it should have at least 120GB for what I have now... plus room for expansion and occasional movies.
That's why if I could only own one, it would be a Classic, among the current offerings. It's all about the music.
I am planning to buy an iPod Touch for web browsing though...
I could use the Touch for videos too, clearing up space on my Classic for more music.
My predictions:
iPod Classic: Phased out
iPod Shuffle: Only two models, 2GB & 4GB
iPod Nano: New redesign, away from phatboy to slim again
8GB and 16GB.... interesting redesigns
iPod Touch: As is, minor cosmetic changes
Remember there is huge limits to how much iPhones one can get
Therefore Touch is still very important
32GB and 64GB (64GB for those iPod Classic potential users to "switch")
------------
To streamline R&D iPod Nano will use some sort of OS X OS. Perhaps to get
iTunes App Store Games?
No. actually this is too radical. Nano uses minor upgrade to previous nano OS.
------------
People who think that the Classic will be killed without a 160GB replacement are smoking something.
Whatever comes about, there will be something with 160GB or more.
Remember, he's the same guy who said he had seen and used the iPhone a few months before it came out - and he said it had a slide out keyboard and 2 batteries amongst other silly features that never existed.
Rose is a tool who just throws enough spaghetti against the wall, hoping something sticks.
Remember, he's the same guy who said he had seen and used the iPhone a few months before it came out - and he said it had a slide out keyboard and 2 batteries amongst other silly features that never existed.
Could he have been lucky enough, to have tried the iPhone II 3G - iPhone Deluxe - iPhone business edition?
Whatever comes about, there will be something with 160GB or more.
I can't find any proof that there are 1.8" that exceed 160GB right now.
I don't know WHY would Apple abandon the current design of the nano--it's actually a nice design to start with.
They have changed the design every year and the feelings about are mixed.
That has to be one of the least plausible mock ups in quite a while.
This looks three times longer than it is wide. It's practically a knife! And combine that with sharp corners and you have a device designed to cause physical injury.
Yes, from the photo is looks like it is no longer nano, i.e. small. But it is hard to tell scale from a photo.
I held up my first gen nano to the screen, the aspect ratio of the overall object is about the same. The 2ng gen nano had sharp corners on the ends too, maybe not that tight of a radius on the ends. I don't think it's unsafe.
The click wheel is pushed towards the end and the screen extended. I see no issues with the shape preventing that mock-up from being the same size as the original nano.
That mockup (in the original post) is one of the most ridiculous mockups I've seen in a while.
Apple would never release something so hideous.
I'm now moving towards the possibility that it could be real. There's been enough times where Apple designs were leaked and panned by the Apple forums, but turned out to be the real deal. For example, people hated the fatboy nano and the aluminum desktop keyboards.
Hard drive consume batteries big time. So do big bright touch screens. The only reason that the iPod Classic has decent battery life with the hard drive is because it doesn't also have a big fancy touch screen.
The days of hard drives in iPods will be over in a few years. Give it 5 more years, and we'll be saying the same about laptops.
Others seem to be pushing an optimistic timeline, I wonder if yours is a bit conservative.
Hard drives aren't that bad though. SSDs don't necessarily save much power, the last round showed some that were worse.
I believe personally that Apple with not touch (pun unintended) the current iPhone 3G lineup until MacWorld January 2009, where there it might get a 32GB or more likely, 3MP improved camera, 2.5 software update, etc.
Larger capacity and improved software is possible. The memory depends on what manufacturers can produce that drops into the product with no other circuitry changes. As for software, that's up to Apple.
A better camera in the current shape is unlikely. The phones bandied about with better cameras are thicker because a better camera needs to be larger, larger lens to collect more light, larger sensors to get larger photosites for better signal to noise ratio, and the depth of the camera scales up too. More megapixels by itself would generally mean worse low light performance, and I doubt a pinhole lens can benefit with more megapixels. The often noted N95 has a good camera, but it's also more than 2cm thick.
I can't find any proof that there are 1.8" that exceed 160GB right now.
It might be a long shot, but Toshiba and Apple might have a deal where Apple gets the first ones, they might not need to promote them yet or even have a deal to keep quiet about them. I do think this is a plausible explanation. I don't think Apple is above just dumping the Classic line or keeping them the same though.
They have changed the design every year and the feelings about are mixed.
The only significant complaints that I remember are with "fatboy". Some complained that the gen 1 nano lanyard wouldn't work with gen 2 (but do with fatboy), but I don't remember any other notable complaints about the looks of either gen 1 or gen 2.
Very very good idea. But bumps up to close with the iPod Touch.
It doesn't really.
- No home screen.
- No 3rd party apps.
- Cheaper.
- Smaller screen.
- Less storage.
- No Wifi.
- Mainly for music.
- Much smaller device in general.
- Hardware Play/Pause (next track) button.
- Subtle design differentiations likely.
It's better than existing nano because:People who think that the Classic will be killed without a 160GB replacement are smoking something.
I agree, well I don't know about smoking, but I agree.
The classic is still a great design and a solid device. It's really the perfect music player for those with larger music collections who like to carry it with them.
The click wheel is pushed towards the end and the screen extended. I see no issues with the shape preventing that mock-up from being the same size as the original nano.
I agree that it doesn't have to be as elongated as the Zune version. I think it may be a little longer than the 2G Nano, but not much. The Flash-based Zune is too long; I don't think Apple would produce an item with that aesthetic, especially since it would look like they are copying the Zune.
I'm now moving towards the possibility that it could be real. There's been enough times where Apple designs were leaked and panned by the Apple forums, but turned out to be the real deal. For example, people hated the fatboy nano and the aluminum desktop keyboards.
I hated the fatty Zune until I saw it on person. Now I like it, but I do think the design it's as easy to hold in the hand. If you mean "real" as in landscape mode will require a 90° turn, I think so. If you mean "real" as in a curved front, I highly doubt it.
PS: Why can't I find the degree symbol using the Alt key on my keyboard?
Hard drives aren't that bad though. SSDs don't necessarily save much power, the last round showed some that were worse.
The studies have shown that the real power saving come from the using larger HDDs that spin faster, not from the 1.8" drives used in the iPod Classic and MBA.
It might be a long shot, but Toshiba and Apple might have a deal where Apple gets the first ones, they might not need to promote them yet or even have a deal to keep quiet about them. I do think this is a plausible explanation.
They have done it before and since there is a single-platter 120GB drive the potential for a 240GB two-platter drive seems possible. Best guess, I don't think that the Classic is important enough to Apple or Toshiba to warranty such a deal. With Flash coming closer to the 1.8" HDD capacity perhaps Toshiba is just investing less resources to these drives. Do they even make the 1" HDDs anymore now that Flash can store considerably more in the same space.
I don't think Apple is above just dumping the Classic line or keeping them the same though.
They aren't above anything that doesn't make them money which is why I think they won't dump it. At very least they might not change a think, but I thin a price drop is in order this time around. The interest may not be huge compared to other iPods but the for those who want a large capacity HDD for holding all their media the interest is strong.
The only significant complaints that I remember are with "fatboy". Some complained that the gen 1 nano lanyard wouldn't work with gen 2 (but do with fatboy), but I don't remember any other notable complaints about the looks of either gen 1 or gen 2.
My bad, the last part of my comment was meant to be, "...and the feelings about [the fatty Nano] are mixed. I am getting bad at not proof reading my replies well enough.
It doesn't really.
<list>
I think replacing the Nano with a touchscreen would be a huge mistake. While the capacitance touchscreen has many pluses it also has a few minuses. The most notable are the lack of tactile response. What makes the iPhone/Touch I think would ruin the Nano.