Sorry, my fault. I conveniently overlooked that despite quoting you almost sentence by sentenc.
Quote:
iTunes have a very nice feature that enable you to sort songs by play count. I used it few times when with my 8GB iPhone to deselect songs that I have never rarely play.
Yes, that makes a 16 GB iPod (ehm, iPhone) bearable. Mine is set to a play count of three or more or a play count of two + at least a 2-star rating + all new music from the last six months to give new stuff a fighting chance.
Lowering the price would be welcome, but what I'd really like to see is iPod Touch versions with more capacity to provide an alternative to the iPod Classic for those of us with large music collections. A 128Gb or more version would be ideal.
Also, now that more video content is becoming available in iTunes it would be great if there was a larger screen size option iPod Touch aswell. I'm sure a 7 or 10 inch screen version would sell well.
128GB of flash and a 10" screen?? Woah, are we living in dream land... Do you know how much that would cost? Not to mention, something that big wouldn't be an iPod. It would be a tablet of some kind.
If you don't care about the internet part of the iPod touch, then you should really look into a harddrive based video player with a 4-6" screen. I believe Archos is a popular brand, and there are many other..
Check out the iPhone (iTouch?) app "Simplify" at the App store. It will stream your large music collection to your iPhone (iTouch over WiFi?) without the need to store it in your mobile device. Works wherever you can access the Internet. This is COOL!!
Now you only need enough memory to hold that small set of music that you might want when you can't connect - on an airplane, e.g. And if you think that we're heading towards ubiquitous internet access, even that small amount of memory won't be needed.
Although this could work in certain situations for different people, there are some problems to think about:
1) Wifi on an iPod/iPhone, and *especially* 3G/UMTS on an iPhone sucks down battery power much faster than playing a music file from the local storage.
2) Many places where you would be listening to music, you can't get a cell signal.
Reitzes maintains that Apple will need to target the iPod touch at a different price bracket now that the iPhone is as inexpensive as it is; the opinion gained momentum over the weekend with a detailed rumor from Digg head Kevin Rose implying that Apple would not only modify the iPod touch but slash iPod prices across the board to bring them into step with the newly discounted cellphone.
Add an IR Transceiver - if people like using the iPhone, iPod as WiFi remotes, how much more happier would they be, to use the iPod Touch as an IR Remote?
I think just adding this one item would make the iPod Touch differentiated enough for people to justify buying the Touch, even if they already have an iPhone - and buying it at current prices, without any price cuts from Apple.
Of course, this would end up "breaking" the app store - because some devices would be IR capable, and some wouldn't be. But the next upgrade to the 3G can support IR - for transferring contacts, etc. And the same IR capability can be used for remotes.
Today, a decent Universal remote is about $200 at least. And a good one is over $300 USD. And the best one today, would not be anywhere near as good as a half decent app on the iPhone.
The hardware itself is very small, and can be easily integrated into the Touch. Would not change profile of the phone, or the battery consumption. It is a no-brainer for Apple to do this.
Another thing Apple can do with the touch, is to make it a full blown wireless multi-touch pad for the Mac. This would work especially well with the Mac Mini (when used as an entertainment center, hooked up to a TV), and for the Apple TV. Basically, whatever App is active on the Mac, it can be controlled by Multi-touch gestures from the Touch. Of course, whenever a keyboard is required, it will serve as a keyboard too.
A low end Touch, with just 128MB Flash, and sold for 149 USD could be marketed very effectively - so each home could find a need for several of these devices - one for each room, or even more! Everything from reading recipes in the kitchen, to controlling TV, music, air con, lights, etc - can be done from the Touch. Down the road, this can also be integrated into home automation systems. Wouldn't you just love to use multi-touch gestures to open the blinds!
Today X10 pretty much owns the home automation business. But only a very small portion of the geek crowd even considers serious home automation. If Apple were to be the 800 lb gorrilla in this business, you can be sure home automation would take off - firstly because Apple would make it simple and convenient, and secondly because Apple can make sure that anything it does, gets a lot of attention. If they can jump into the pool with sharks like Nokia and RIM, when it comes to the mobile business, the home automation business should be a walk in the park for them. Plus they should design the software interface to be available only from the Mac -- that is the kind of app that will force even the diehard Windows users to consider the Mac.
Apple has built a lot of impressive pieces of hardware. But if they can manage to combine all these impressive bits, then the sum of parts could be even more impressive.
Imagine -- iMac/Mac Pro based home computer, center of the entertainment/automation universe in your home, Multiple iPod Touch access units, throughout your home - to be used as wireless remotes, home automation controllers, etc. iPhone to be used as controller when you are out of the home (using BackToMyMac VPN networking), Apple TV as the end point to feed content into your TV.
You do know that iPod/iPhone movies are typically less than 500MB, don't you? My 16GB iPhone carries all my music library, photos, and 2 to 3 movies with more than 4GB free space. You don't need to have all your movies on your iPod/iPhone, you can transfer what you want when you need it.
Your movies must look pretty lousy if you are compressing them down to 500MB. The default setting on Handbrake for iPhone/iTouch averages 1 GB for a 2 hour movie. Also, you must have a very small music collection if you have your entire collection with photos and 3 movies with 4 GB to spare. Most users have a music, video, and photo collection that far exceeds the capacity of the 16 GB iPhone. I would love to have a 128 GB (or more) iPhone or iPod Touch. My iPod 160 GB Classic carries the entire collection and my 16 GB iPhone carries a portion of music, movies, music videos, and photos.
Although this could work in certain situations for different people, there are some problems to think about:
1) Wifi on an iPod/iPhone, and *especially* 3G/UMTS on an iPhone sucks down battery power much faster than playing a music file from the local storage.
2) Many places where you would be listening to music, you can't get a cell signal.
Where do you go to listen to music where you don't get a cell signal? Underground hole? Whenever I listen to music, I always have a cell signal, unless it is an airplane.
Your movies must look pretty lousy if you are compressing them down to 500MB. The default setting on Handbrake for iPhone/iTouch averages 1 GB for a 2 hour movie. Also, you must have a very small music collection if you have your entire collection with photos and 3 movies with 4 GB to spare. Most users have a music, video, and photo collection that far exceeds the capacity of the 16 GB iPhone. I would love to have a 128 GB (or more) iPhone or iPod Touch. My iPod 160 GB Classic carries the entire collection and my 16 GB iPhone carries a portion of music, movies, music videos, and photos.
You don't need to have high quality setting for a 3.5 inch screen. I use VisualHub with bit-rate of 500 kbps and default iPhone setting. Anything more than that is waste of space if you want to watch it on your iPhone or iPod. I will email you a sample if you want, just private me your email.
Yes my music collection is very small compared to other mostly due to HD crashed when I used PCs over the years. What I have now is what's left.
Your movies must look pretty lousy if you are compressing them down to 500MB. The default setting on Handbrake for iPhone/iTouch averages 1 GB for a 2 hour movie. Also, you must have a very small music collection if you have your entire collection with photos and 3 movies with 4 GB to spare. Most users have a music, video, and photo collection that far exceeds the capacity of the 16 GB iPhone. I would love to have a 128 GB (or more) iPhone or iPod Touch. My iPod 160 GB Classic carries the entire collection and my 16 GB iPhone carries a portion of music, movies, music videos, and photos.
I did a little test with handbrake by ripping Pixar's, "The Incredibles" multiple times with different
bitrates. I made versions with the average bitrates set at 1000kbps, 750kbps, 500kbps, 400kbps,
& 250kbps. When I viewed them on my iPhone I noticed jpeg artifacts at 400kbps & lower.
Comments
I was talking about movies.
Sorry, my fault. I conveniently overlooked that despite quoting you almost sentence by sentenc.
iTunes have a very nice feature that enable you to sort songs by play count. I used it few times when with my 8GB iPhone to deselect songs that I have never rarely play.
Yes, that makes a 16 GB iPod (ehm, iPhone) bearable. Mine is set to a play count of three or more or a play count of two + at least a 2-star rating + all new music from the last six months to give new stuff a fighting chance.
Lowering the price would be welcome, but what I'd really like to see is iPod Touch versions with more capacity to provide an alternative to the iPod Classic for those of us with large music collections. A 128Gb or more version would be ideal.
Also, now that more video content is becoming available in iTunes it would be great if there was a larger screen size option iPod Touch aswell. I'm sure a 7 or 10 inch screen version would sell well.
128GB of flash and a 10" screen?? Woah, are we living in dream land... Do you know how much that would cost? Not to mention, something that big wouldn't be an iPod. It would be a tablet of some kind.
If you don't care about the internet part of the iPod touch, then you should really look into a harddrive based video player with a 4-6" screen. I believe Archos is a popular brand, and there are many other..
Check out the iPhone (iTouch?) app "Simplify" at the App store. It will stream your large music collection to your iPhone (iTouch over WiFi?) without the need to store it in your mobile device. Works wherever you can access the Internet. This is COOL!!
Now you only need enough memory to hold that small set of music that you might want when you can't connect - on an airplane, e.g. And if you think that we're heading towards ubiquitous internet access, even that small amount of memory won't be needed.
Although this could work in certain situations for different people, there are some problems to think about:
1) Wifi on an iPod/iPhone, and *especially* 3G/UMTS on an iPhone sucks down battery power much faster than playing a music file from the local storage.
2) Many places where you would be listening to music, you can't get a cell signal.
Reitzes maintains that Apple will need to target the iPod touch at a different price bracket now that the iPhone is as inexpensive as it is; the opinion gained momentum over the weekend with a detailed rumor from Digg head Kevin Rose implying that Apple would not only modify the iPod touch but slash iPod prices across the board to bring them into step with the newly discounted cellphone.
Add an IR Transceiver - if people like using the iPhone, iPod as WiFi remotes, how much more happier would they be, to use the iPod Touch as an IR Remote?
I think just adding this one item would make the iPod Touch differentiated enough for people to justify buying the Touch, even if they already have an iPhone - and buying it at current prices, without any price cuts from Apple.
Of course, this would end up "breaking" the app store - because some devices would be IR capable, and some wouldn't be. But the next upgrade to the 3G can support IR - for transferring contacts, etc. And the same IR capability can be used for remotes.
Today, a decent Universal remote is about $200 at least. And a good one is over $300 USD. And the best one today, would not be anywhere near as good as a half decent app on the iPhone.
The hardware itself is very small, and can be easily integrated into the Touch. Would not change profile of the phone, or the battery consumption. It is a no-brainer for Apple to do this.
Another thing Apple can do with the touch, is to make it a full blown wireless multi-touch pad for the Mac. This would work especially well with the Mac Mini (when used as an entertainment center, hooked up to a TV), and for the Apple TV. Basically, whatever App is active on the Mac, it can be controlled by Multi-touch gestures from the Touch. Of course, whenever a keyboard is required, it will serve as a keyboard too.
A low end Touch, with just 128MB Flash, and sold for 149 USD could be marketed very effectively - so each home could find a need for several of these devices - one for each room, or even more! Everything from reading recipes in the kitchen, to controlling TV, music, air con, lights, etc - can be done from the Touch. Down the road, this can also be integrated into home automation systems. Wouldn't you just love to use multi-touch gestures to open the blinds!
Today X10 pretty much owns the home automation business. But only a very small portion of the geek crowd even considers serious home automation. If Apple were to be the 800 lb gorrilla in this business, you can be sure home automation would take off - firstly because Apple would make it simple and convenient, and secondly because Apple can make sure that anything it does, gets a lot of attention. If they can jump into the pool with sharks like Nokia and RIM, when it comes to the mobile business, the home automation business should be a walk in the park for them. Plus they should design the software interface to be available only from the Mac -- that is the kind of app that will force even the diehard Windows users to consider the Mac.
Apple has built a lot of impressive pieces of hardware. But if they can manage to combine all these impressive bits, then the sum of parts could be even more impressive.
Imagine -- iMac/Mac Pro based home computer, center of the entertainment/automation universe in your home, Multiple iPod Touch access units, throughout your home - to be used as wireless remotes, home automation controllers, etc. iPhone to be used as controller when you are out of the home (using BackToMyMac VPN networking), Apple TV as the end point to feed content into your TV.
I guess this could be called the iDream!
You do know that iPod/iPhone movies are typically less than 500MB, don't you? My 16GB iPhone carries all my music library, photos, and 2 to 3 movies with more than 4GB free space. You don't need to have all your movies on your iPod/iPhone, you can transfer what you want when you need it.
Your movies must look pretty lousy if you are compressing them down to 500MB. The default setting on Handbrake for iPhone/iTouch averages 1 GB for a 2 hour movie. Also, you must have a very small music collection if you have your entire collection with photos and 3 movies with 4 GB to spare. Most users have a music, video, and photo collection that far exceeds the capacity of the 16 GB iPhone. I would love to have a 128 GB (or more) iPhone or iPod Touch. My iPod 160 GB Classic carries the entire collection and my 16 GB iPhone carries a portion of music, movies, music videos, and photos.
A hard-disk based touch would be very reasonable today. But it wouldn't be slim and sexy, so probably won't happen.
It wouldn't be any thicker than the current iPod classic and those are already slim and sexy. The hard drives in the iPods are very small.
Although this could work in certain situations for different people, there are some problems to think about:
1) Wifi on an iPod/iPhone, and *especially* 3G/UMTS on an iPhone sucks down battery power much faster than playing a music file from the local storage.
2) Many places where you would be listening to music, you can't get a cell signal.
Where do you go to listen to music where you don't get a cell signal? Underground hole? Whenever I listen to music, I always have a cell signal, unless it is an airplane.
Your movies must look pretty lousy if you are compressing them down to 500MB. The default setting on Handbrake for iPhone/iTouch averages 1 GB for a 2 hour movie. Also, you must have a very small music collection if you have your entire collection with photos and 3 movies with 4 GB to spare. Most users have a music, video, and photo collection that far exceeds the capacity of the 16 GB iPhone. I would love to have a 128 GB (or more) iPhone or iPod Touch. My iPod 160 GB Classic carries the entire collection and my 16 GB iPhone carries a portion of music, movies, music videos, and photos.
You don't need to have high quality setting for a 3.5 inch screen. I use VisualHub with bit-rate of 500 kbps and default iPhone setting. Anything more than that is waste of space if you want to watch it on your iPhone or iPod. I will email you a sample if you want, just private me your email.
Yes my music collection is very small compared to other mostly due to HD crashed when I used PCs over the years. What I have now is what's left.
Your movies must look pretty lousy if you are compressing them down to 500MB. The default setting on Handbrake for iPhone/iTouch averages 1 GB for a 2 hour movie. Also, you must have a very small music collection if you have your entire collection with photos and 3 movies with 4 GB to spare. Most users have a music, video, and photo collection that far exceeds the capacity of the 16 GB iPhone. I would love to have a 128 GB (or more) iPhone or iPod Touch. My iPod 160 GB Classic carries the entire collection and my 16 GB iPhone carries a portion of music, movies, music videos, and photos.
I did a little test with handbrake by ripping Pixar's, "The Incredibles" multiple times with different
bitrates. I made versions with the average bitrates set at 1000kbps, 750kbps, 500kbps, 400kbps,
& 250kbps. When I viewed them on my iPhone I noticed jpeg artifacts at 400kbps & lower.