A couple of comments from a different perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi
For starters. Why would Apple release a widescreen nano and not a widescreen classic?
Here are some possible price points/structure as I can see it.
2GB Shuffle - $50
A 2GB MP3 player could be implemented for as little as $30 retail and still have all the cache of an Apple product. That would like be in a USB dongle form with an Apple twist. As it is Shuffles are a bit overpriced, but that can be controlled via good engineering. As always the most difficult part of such a device is yhe battery.
Quote:
4GB Nano - $100 (silver)
8GB Nano - $150 (multiple colors)
8GB iTouch - $200
I suspect the low capacity Touch & Nano will disappear. The problem is flash is dirt cheap now and the consumers know it. It is kinda hard to justify the price on these things when flash in these capacities sell to consumers for less than $25.
So Nano's in 8 & 16 GB for $125 & $175
Touch would start at 16 GB for $199
Quote:
120GB 3" Widescreen Classic - $250
16GB iTouch - $300
160GB 3" Widescreen Classic - $300
Obviously we disagree on the Touch but may have common ground on a classic replacement. I haven't seen much on new drive tech but for now let's say 160 GB is the best one can do. So we put that into a platform as a Classic replacement. This would however be a Touch based device with at least an HD aspect ratio wide screen. This means the new "Classic" would likely be a bit longer but would be far more optimal for video usage and might even fill the Newton 2 role.
The packaging on this device would be flexible to support versions built with flash.
Quote:
32GB iTouch - $400
Apple already makes a 32GB Touch that will likely drop down to around $200 if it has the same feature set. At or slightly below the $300 dollar mark I expect something in the 48 - 64 GB range. Here is the scoop on what I'm thinking.
Apple has stated that PASemi was purchased to design iPod chips, now that could be bull but let's say it is real. Why would Apple go to PA for iPod chips, the only answer is integration. If Apple can get enough tech integrated into a SoC then they may be able to fee up space for three flash devices. This means they can be more flexible in offering different Touch capacities and achieving economies. This something like a 48 GB iPod becomes possible with a number of chip combinations. Same deal here for a 96 GB device. Yeah three high capacity flash chips would be a lot for the current Touch but imagine Apple getting rid of 90% of the chips on the board.
So... Apple kill the Classic and alienate an exceptionally large proportion of its customers who do not want the expense or features of the iPod Touch?
So... Apple kill the Classic and alienate an exceptionally large proportion of its customers who do not want the expense or features of the iPod Touch?
I don't think so.
If Apple were to introduce high capacity SSDs, i would like to see them in the MacBook Air! I am definitely a confirmed Classic 160GB user and have an iPhone 3G; my biggest gripe against the Touch and the iPhone are that they are useable as storage on the desktop-- ok, who wants a phone as a piece of data luggage?--but the ability to keep everything going on a useful mobil HD that doubles as an iPod with video capability is a true joy.
A couple of comments from a different perspective.
A 2GB MP3 player could be implemented for as little as $30 retail and still have all the cache of an Apple product. That would like be in a USB dongle form with an Apple twist. As it is Shuffles are a bit overpriced, but that can be controlled via good engineering. As always the most difficult part of such a device is yhe battery.
Apple already went that route with the 1st gen shuffle and I don't think they are going back. It's too big of a device. The new clip based shuffles are a lot smaller and much more handy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I suspect the low capacity Touch & Nano will disappear. The problem is flash is dirt cheap now and the consumers know it. It is kinda hard to justify the price on these things when flash in these capacities sell to consumers for less than $25.
This has never mattered much to Apple. Often times they sell products that are underpowered but over sexed, and people buy the product anyway because of its looks and the way it works, not because of its overall power/storage.
Plus $100 is the magic point in marketing. That is a price that people are willing to pay for a spur of the moment purchase. So a $100 4GB nano would sell like hotcakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
So Nano's in 8 & 16 GB for $125 & $175
Touch would start at 16 GB for $199
I think you are giving way too much credit to Apple here on pricing. Remember the current 16GB touch sells for $400. I highly doubt they are going to drop it $200 in price when they can drop it $100 and have people still be happy. A 16GB nano for $250 might be possible though. In fact highly likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Obviously we disagree on the Touch but may have common ground on a classic replacement. I haven't seen much on new drive tech but for now let's say 160 GB is the best one can do. So we put that into a platform as a Classic replacement. This would however be a Touch based device with at least an HD aspect ratio wide screen. This means the new "Classic" would likely be a bit longer but would be far more optimal for video usage and might even fill the Newton 2 role.
The packaging on this device would be flexible to support versions built with flash.
I think that is more wishful thinking on your part then actual reality. Apple is not going to pit the classic as direct competition against the touch by adding touchscreen to it. At most what we are going to see is something similar in design to the new 120GB zune. Something with a 3" screen instead of a 2.5" screen and just a slightly smaller clickwheel. No touch screen though. Remember a lot of classic users don't like and don't want a touch screen. Apple knows this.
We know Microsoft can create a 120GB zune with a 3" screen for $250, so Apple can do the same. Sadly, I really doubt it will have a larger screen. I think it will be the same classic with just a 120GB hard drive to replace the 80GB model and a price drop of $50 for the 160GB model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Apple already makes a 32GB Touch that will likely drop down to around $200 if it has the same feature set. At or slightly below the $300 dollar mark I expect something in the 48 - 64 GB range. Here is the scoop on what I'm thinking.
I don't think you are going to see a higher capacity Touch at this event, at most just price drops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Apple has stated that PASemi was purchased to design iPod chips, now that could be bull but let's say it is real. Why would Apple go to PA for iPod chips, the only answer is integration. If Apple can get enough tech integrated into a SoC then they may be able to fee up space for three flash devices. This means they can be more flexible in offering different Touch capacities and achieving economies. This something like a 48 GB iPod becomes possible with a number of chip combinations. Same deal here for a 96 GB device. Yeah three high capacity flash chips would be a lot for the current Touch but imagine Apple getting rid of 90% of the chips on the board.
Once again you are jumping too far ahead. Apple just bought this company, it's going to take them about a year to get all their ducks lined up in a row before we start seeing shipping Apple products that use these chipsets. Maybe this time next year, but certainly not tomorrow.
Apple won't kill the classic until there is a 160GB or greater replacement. Could be a touch-style device. Might not.
They won't kill the 160GB hard drive iPod until they can viably replace it with a 160GB flash model (or other storage type). They will not go down in maximum capacity (i.e. from 160GB maximum to 120GB maximum). Not now. Not ever.
Even if there's a 64GB touch, Apple will not kill the Classic. Even if there's a 128GB iPod Touch, Apple will not kill the classic. They will not go down in maximum capacity. Not now, not ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
But Apple won't EOL the only 160GB+ option. Maybe replace it with a thinner version and cancel the 80. Or make it a 160GB HDD Touch.
Remember what I said about looking foolish when you make absurd claims based on nothing but opinion? How's that feel now?
EDIT: Nevermind, you called yourself on it. Good form.
The drop to 120GB is a good move IMO. The more capacity an ipod has, the longer it takes to fill that space, restore it and so on.
The problem with having ipods big enough to store all of a person's music, the more they feel they can simply store it on the ipod alone. Then it breaks and the music is either gone or has to be ripped from a huge CD collection again.
Next year, I can see the classic dying completely. No matter if HDD gets up to 320GB for the same price, it's simply not needed and they can offer a 32GB flash ipod for the same price.
I would rather see them reach 64GB next year and for the price to simply drop after that.
I wouldn't be surprised if itunes had been reporting back ipod space usage to Apple so that they could make this decision.
Assuming you spent 8 hours a day listening to music, even a 16GB ipod can store enough music that you could listen to it for 3 weeks and not hear the same song. After about 2 months, you'll be ready to hear something new anyway.
The drop to 120GB is a good move IMO. The more capacity an ipod has, the longer it takes to fill that space, restore it and so on.
The problem with having ipods big enough to store all of a person's music, the more they feel they can simply store it on the ipod alone. Then it breaks and the music is either gone or has to be ripped from a huge CD collection again.
Next year, I can see the classic dying completely. No matter if HDD gets up to 320GB for the same price, it's simply not needed and they can offer a 32GB flash ipod for the same price.
I would rather see them reach 64GB next year and for the price to simply drop after that.
I wouldn't be surprised if itunes had been reporting back ipod space usage to Apple so that they could make this decision.
Assuming you spent 8 hours a day listening to music, even a 16GB ipod can store enough music that you could listen to it for 3 weeks and not hear the same song. After about 2 months, you'll be ready to hear something new anyway.
You sound like the people that were convinced a 256MB flash card was enough back when the iPod came out. Just choose the music you want to carry with you. Except that the purpose of the iPod Classic is to be able to take your ENTIRE music library with you. The concept of all your music in your pocket is what made the iPod so great. I loathe having to decide which music I will and won't listen to, especially on a long trip. You also totally discount that a lot of people have lossless music that takes up much, much more space than AAC or MP3. Looks like I am going to have to track down a 160GB Classic before they're gone.
The biggest advantage to a high-capacity (64GB+) iPod is the ability to hold movies and TV shows on it, but the iPod Classic has the weakest screen for that type of content.
As such, I do believe the HDD-based iPod will leave the lineup sooner rather then later. I imagine once the Touch can get to 64GB for about $349 is when the iPod Classic will drop. Yes, it will require some "storage discipline" on the part of owners, but in all seriousness, if you want to haul around scores of movies and TV shows, you should be looking at a Windows device like the Archos Media Players which sacrifice ease of transport for a form factor that best leverages heavy video content watching.
I also believe Apple will kill the HDD based Classic before its capacity can be matched (both size & price) by flash ram based products. This will be a thoughtful & educated decision, and will probably be the source of 'lower margins' from the earnings call. Apple is most likely taking the next step and plans on moving the entire iPod line to flash ram based storage.
Think of it this way, 'regular' RAM used to be outrageous in price, now it is dirt cheap. Currently flash ram is outrageously expensive; but, in time; it to will become dirt cheap in cost.
Apple is just planning on being ahead of that curve, and they are willing to take an earnings hit to do so.
Who knows, someday there might be no such thing as HDDs. And for those that immediately cry out "Heresy!", remember the day when computer programs were stored on punch cards…?!?
The biggest advantage to a high-capacity (64GB+) iPod is the ability to hold movies and TV shows on it, but the iPod Classic has the weakest screen for that type of content.
As such, I do believe the HDD-based iPod will leave the lineup sooner rather then later. I imagine once the Touch can get to 64GB for about $349 is when the iPod Classic will drop. Yes, it will require some "storage discipline" on the part of owners, but in all seriousness, if you want to haul around scores of movies and TV shows, you should be looking at a Windows device like the Archos Media Players which sacrifice ease of transport for a form factor that best leverages heavy video content watching.
Yeah - anti Classic people seem to ignore the fact that, if i want to take my Office collection with me (4 seasons) thats ALOT of space, especially if you want a couple movies, and music (say, on a trip without your computer)
Thus, even a 320 HDD iPod does have its uses, its just not economically viable for Apple, especially because Flash is the future. In a few(or more) years i expect 256 GB + flash touches
Yeah - anti Classic people seem to ignore the fact that, if i want to take my Office collection with me (4 seasons) thats ALOT of space, especially if you want a couple movies, and music (say, on a trip without your computer)
Thus, even a 320 HDD iPod does have its uses, its just not economically viable for Apple, especially because Flash is the future. In a few(or more) years i expect 256 GB + flash touches
Sorry but I'm not buying that argument. The entire Seinfeld collection can fit into 32GB - that's 180 episodes = 90 hours. Unless you are watching them all back to back during the entire trip then there's absolutely no problem and perhaps you shouldn't have gone on the trip if your intention was to watch movies the whole time.
Fair enough, having the whole collection allows you to decide when you get there what you want to watch but it's really not a big problem that Apple would have to cater for a select few people who actually want to have everything with them. Most people will take about 2-3 movies and the next few episodes in a season they are watching in progression along with some music.
Sorry but I'm not buying that argument. The entire Seinfeld collection can fit into 32GB - that's 180 episodes = 90 hours. Unless you are watching them all back to back during the entire trip then there's absolutely no problem and perhaps you shouldn't have gone on the trip if your intention was to watch movies the whole time.
Fair enough, having the whole collection allows you to decide when you get there what you want to watch but it's really not a big problem that Apple would have to cater for a select few people who actually want to have everything with them. Most people will take about 2-3 movies and the next few episodes in a season they are watching in progression along with some music.
I'm wondering when it came to pass that those of us who want to carry our entire collection around went from "virtually everyone" when the iPod came out to "select few" now.
Oh, and for the record, Toshiba introduced a 240GB HD to replace the 160. I think there's a good chance that it could find it's way into an iPod Classic at some point (price may be too high right now).
I'm wondering when it came to pass that those of us who want to carry our entire collection around went from "virtually everyone" when the iPod came out to "select few" now.
Just yesterday. You didn't get Steve's memo?
Seriously though, I doubt that it was virtually everyone. Nobody I know who has ipods do this. They have the older white models 60GB, the new black 80GB ones, 8GB iphones, 1GB shuffles, 4GB minis and none of them do this. I only know one person who has kept the larger ipod because they don't change their collection much. The rest have switched to lower sized iphones or ipods because the sync process is part of owning an ipod. It's just a slave device and it has to get charged anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter
Oh, and for the record, Toshiba introduced a 240GB HD to replace the 160. I think there's a good chance that it could find it's way into an iPod Classic at some point (price may be too high right now).
Maybe but why would they consciously drop the storage? If capacity was a bigger concern than price then they wouldn't have done it. When they make 120GB the biggest in the lineup and say it's one size fits all - note that they didn't leave the 160GB as an option - they are suggesting to people that this is the biggest size you should need. If you have more content than this then an ipod is not where you should be storing it.
Next year the classic could have more storage but they are struggling to push their touch innovations into the click-wheel models so sooner or later, they will have to go.
Here's one thing I'm thinking about in the whole price drop scenario. Have Apple really cut back on their margins with the ipod line? All the price drops seem to be either related to unifying the lineup or dropping capacity. This makes me think that any margin cut-backs are being saved for the Macs.
Sorry but I'm not buying that argument. The entire Seinfeld collection can fit into 32GB - that's 180 episodes = 90 hours. Unless you are watching them all back to back during the entire trip then there's absolutely no problem and perhaps you shouldn't have gone on the trip if your intention was to watch movies the whole time.
Fair enough, having the whole collection allows you to decide when you get there what you want to watch but it's really not a big problem that Apple would have to cater for a select few people who actually want to have everything with them. Most people will take about 2-3 movies and the next few episodes in a season they are watching in progression along with some music.
I don't see that as a reason not to offer it, once flash prices come down, of course.
You sound like the people that were convinced a 256MB flash card was enough back when the iPod came out. Just choose the music you want to carry with you. Except that the purpose of the iPod Classic is to be able to take your ENTIRE music library with you. The concept of all your music in your pocket is what made the iPod so great. I loathe having to decide which music I will and won't listen to, especially on a long trip. You also totally discount that a lot of people have lossless music that takes up much, much more space than AAC or MP3. Looks like I am going to have to track down a 160GB Classic before they're gone.
Infinitespecter, go to J&R in NY to get your 160GB iPod. I want to put every song I own on mine (and I rip using CD lossless, so songs take up a lot of memory), so when Apple announced the death of the 160GB, I decided I had better get one! It's a helluva step up from my 40GB monochromatic Click Wheel model (4G). Not long ago, that model was $349 at Apple stores. J&R used to sell it at $299. I just got mine for $280, plus $7 shipping! I guess it doesn't have Genius built in (does the 120GB?), but I couldn't be happier with the capacity!!
Comments
Here are some possible price points/structure as I can see it.
2GB Shuffle - $50
4GB Nano - $100 (silver)
8GB Nano - $150 (multiple colors)
8GB iTouch - $200
120GB 3" Widescreen Classic - $250
16GB iTouch - $300
160GB 3" Widescreen Classic - $300
32GB iTouch - $400
For starters. Why would Apple release a widescreen nano and not a widescreen classic?
Here are some possible price points/structure as I can see it.
2GB Shuffle - $50
A 2GB MP3 player could be implemented for as little as $30 retail and still have all the cache of an Apple product. That would like be in a USB dongle form with an Apple twist. As it is Shuffles are a bit overpriced, but that can be controlled via good engineering. As always the most difficult part of such a device is yhe battery.
4GB Nano - $100 (silver)
8GB Nano - $150 (multiple colors)
8GB iTouch - $200
I suspect the low capacity Touch & Nano will disappear. The problem is flash is dirt cheap now and the consumers know it. It is kinda hard to justify the price on these things when flash in these capacities sell to consumers for less than $25.
So Nano's in 8 & 16 GB for $125 & $175
Touch would start at 16 GB for $199
120GB 3" Widescreen Classic - $250
16GB iTouch - $300
160GB 3" Widescreen Classic - $300
Obviously we disagree on the Touch but may have common ground on a classic replacement. I haven't seen much on new drive tech but for now let's say 160 GB is the best one can do. So we put that into a platform as a Classic replacement. This would however be a Touch based device with at least an HD aspect ratio wide screen. This means the new "Classic" would likely be a bit longer but would be far more optimal for video usage and might even fill the Newton 2 role.
The packaging on this device would be flexible to support versions built with flash.
32GB iTouch - $400
Apple already makes a 32GB Touch that will likely drop down to around $200 if it has the same feature set. At or slightly below the $300 dollar mark I expect something in the 48 - 64 GB range. Here is the scoop on what I'm thinking.
Apple has stated that PASemi was purchased to design iPod chips, now that could be bull but let's say it is real. Why would Apple go to PA for iPod chips, the only answer is integration. If Apple can get enough tech integrated into a SoC then they may be able to fee up space for three flash devices. This means they can be more flexible in offering different Touch capacities and achieving economies. This something like a 48 GB iPod becomes possible with a number of chip combinations. Same deal here for a 96 GB device. Yeah three high capacity flash chips would be a lot for the current Touch but imagine Apple getting rid of 90% of the chips on the board.
Dave
So Nano's in 8 & 16 GB for $125 & $175
Touch would start at 16 GB for $199
Dave
not enough price difference between the 16 GB models.
I don't think so.
So... Apple kill the Classic and alienate an exceptionally large proportion of its customers who do not want the expense or features of the iPod Touch?
I don't think so.
If Apple were to introduce high capacity SSDs, i would like to see them in the MacBook Air! I am definitely a confirmed Classic 160GB user and have an iPhone 3G; my biggest gripe against the Touch and the iPhone are that they are useable as storage on the desktop-- ok, who wants a phone as a piece of data luggage?--but the ability to keep everything going on a useful mobil HD that doubles as an iPod with video capability is a true joy.
A couple of comments from a different perspective.
A 2GB MP3 player could be implemented for as little as $30 retail and still have all the cache of an Apple product. That would like be in a USB dongle form with an Apple twist. As it is Shuffles are a bit overpriced, but that can be controlled via good engineering. As always the most difficult part of such a device is yhe battery.
Apple already went that route with the 1st gen shuffle and I don't think they are going back. It's too big of a device. The new clip based shuffles are a lot smaller and much more handy.
I suspect the low capacity Touch & Nano will disappear. The problem is flash is dirt cheap now and the consumers know it. It is kinda hard to justify the price on these things when flash in these capacities sell to consumers for less than $25.
This has never mattered much to Apple. Often times they sell products that are underpowered but over sexed, and people buy the product anyway because of its looks and the way it works, not because of its overall power/storage.
Plus $100 is the magic point in marketing. That is a price that people are willing to pay for a spur of the moment purchase. So a $100 4GB nano would sell like hotcakes.
So Nano's in 8 & 16 GB for $125 & $175
Touch would start at 16 GB for $199
I think you are giving way too much credit to Apple here on pricing. Remember the current 16GB touch sells for $400. I highly doubt they are going to drop it $200 in price when they can drop it $100 and have people still be happy. A 16GB nano for $250 might be possible though. In fact highly likely.
Obviously we disagree on the Touch but may have common ground on a classic replacement. I haven't seen much on new drive tech but for now let's say 160 GB is the best one can do. So we put that into a platform as a Classic replacement. This would however be a Touch based device with at least an HD aspect ratio wide screen. This means the new "Classic" would likely be a bit longer but would be far more optimal for video usage and might even fill the Newton 2 role.
The packaging on this device would be flexible to support versions built with flash.
I think that is more wishful thinking on your part then actual reality. Apple is not going to pit the classic as direct competition against the touch by adding touchscreen to it. At most what we are going to see is something similar in design to the new 120GB zune. Something with a 3" screen instead of a 2.5" screen and just a slightly smaller clickwheel. No touch screen though. Remember a lot of classic users don't like and don't want a touch screen. Apple knows this.
We know Microsoft can create a 120GB zune with a 3" screen for $250, so Apple can do the same. Sadly, I really doubt it will have a larger screen. I think it will be the same classic with just a 120GB hard drive to replace the 80GB model and a price drop of $50 for the 160GB model.
Apple already makes a 32GB Touch that will likely drop down to around $200 if it has the same feature set. At or slightly below the $300 dollar mark I expect something in the 48 - 64 GB range. Here is the scoop on what I'm thinking.
I don't think you are going to see a higher capacity Touch at this event, at most just price drops.
Apple has stated that PASemi was purchased to design iPod chips, now that could be bull but let's say it is real. Why would Apple go to PA for iPod chips, the only answer is integration. If Apple can get enough tech integrated into a SoC then they may be able to fee up space for three flash devices. This means they can be more flexible in offering different Touch capacities and achieving economies. This something like a 48 GB iPod becomes possible with a number of chip combinations. Same deal here for a 96 GB device. Yeah three high capacity flash chips would be a lot for the current Touch but imagine Apple getting rid of 90% of the chips on the board.
Once again you are jumping too far ahead. Apple just bought this company, it's going to take them about a year to get all their ducks lined up in a row before we start seeing shipping Apple products that use these chipsets. Maybe this time next year, but certainly not tomorrow.
Apple won't kill the classic until there is a 160GB or greater replacement. Could be a touch-style device. Might not.
They won't kill the 160GB hard drive iPod until they can viably replace it with a 160GB flash model (or other storage type). They will not go down in maximum capacity (i.e. from 160GB maximum to 120GB maximum). Not now. Not ever.
I am totally pwn3d.
Makes my 160GB Classic feel precious.
Even if there's a 64GB touch, Apple will not kill the Classic. Even if there's a 128GB iPod Touch, Apple will not kill the classic. They will not go down in maximum capacity. Not now, not ever.
But Apple won't EOL the only 160GB+ option. Maybe replace it with a thinner version and cancel the 80. Or make it a 160GB HDD Touch.
Remember what I said about looking foolish when you make absurd claims based on nothing but opinion? How's that feel now?
EDIT: Nevermind, you called yourself on it. Good form.
I am totally pwn3d.
Makes my 160GB Classic feel precious.
I missed my window of opportunity to get in here and 'revisit' your original post?
But props for owning up to your mistake! Or was it a preemptive action?!?
The problem with having ipods big enough to store all of a person's music, the more they feel they can simply store it on the ipod alone. Then it breaks and the music is either gone or has to be ripped from a huge CD collection again.
Next year, I can see the classic dying completely. No matter if HDD gets up to 320GB for the same price, it's simply not needed and they can offer a 32GB flash ipod for the same price.
I would rather see them reach 64GB next year and for the price to simply drop after that.
I wouldn't be surprised if itunes had been reporting back ipod space usage to Apple so that they could make this decision.
Assuming you spent 8 hours a day listening to music, even a 16GB ipod can store enough music that you could listen to it for 3 weeks and not hear the same song. After about 2 months, you'll be ready to hear something new anyway.
The drop to 120GB is a good move IMO. The more capacity an ipod has, the longer it takes to fill that space, restore it and so on.
The problem with having ipods big enough to store all of a person's music, the more they feel they can simply store it on the ipod alone. Then it breaks and the music is either gone or has to be ripped from a huge CD collection again.
Next year, I can see the classic dying completely. No matter if HDD gets up to 320GB for the same price, it's simply not needed and they can offer a 32GB flash ipod for the same price.
I would rather see them reach 64GB next year and for the price to simply drop after that.
I wouldn't be surprised if itunes had been reporting back ipod space usage to Apple so that they could make this decision.
Assuming you spent 8 hours a day listening to music, even a 16GB ipod can store enough music that you could listen to it for 3 weeks and not hear the same song. After about 2 months, you'll be ready to hear something new anyway.
You sound like the people that were convinced a 256MB flash card was enough back when the iPod came out. Just choose the music you want to carry with you. Except that the purpose of the iPod Classic is to be able to take your ENTIRE music library with you. The concept of all your music in your pocket is what made the iPod so great. I loathe having to decide which music I will and won't listen to, especially on a long trip. You also totally discount that a lot of people have lossless music that takes up much, much more space than AAC or MP3. Looks like I am going to have to track down a 160GB Classic before they're gone.
As such, I do believe the HDD-based iPod will leave the lineup sooner rather then later. I imagine once the Touch can get to 64GB for about $349 is when the iPod Classic will drop. Yes, it will require some "storage discipline" on the part of owners, but in all seriousness, if you want to haul around scores of movies and TV shows, you should be looking at a Windows device like the Archos Media Players which sacrifice ease of transport for a form factor that best leverages heavy video content watching.
Think of it this way, 'regular' RAM used to be outrageous in price, now it is dirt cheap. Currently flash ram is outrageously expensive; but, in time; it to will become dirt cheap in cost.
Apple is just planning on being ahead of that curve, and they are willing to take an earnings hit to do so.
Who knows, someday there might be no such thing as HDDs. And for those that immediately cry out "Heresy!", remember the day when computer programs were stored on punch cards…?!?
The biggest advantage to a high-capacity (64GB+) iPod is the ability to hold movies and TV shows on it, but the iPod Classic has the weakest screen for that type of content.
As such, I do believe the HDD-based iPod will leave the lineup sooner rather then later. I imagine once the Touch can get to 64GB for about $349 is when the iPod Classic will drop. Yes, it will require some "storage discipline" on the part of owners, but in all seriousness, if you want to haul around scores of movies and TV shows, you should be looking at a Windows device like the Archos Media Players which sacrifice ease of transport for a form factor that best leverages heavy video content watching.
Yeah - anti Classic people seem to ignore the fact that, if i want to take my Office collection with me (4 seasons) thats ALOT of space, especially if you want a couple movies, and music (say, on a trip without your computer)
Thus, even a 320 HDD iPod does have its uses, its just not economically viable for Apple, especially because Flash is the future. In a few(or more) years i expect 256 GB + flash touches
Yeah - anti Classic people seem to ignore the fact that, if i want to take my Office collection with me (4 seasons) thats ALOT of space, especially if you want a couple movies, and music (say, on a trip without your computer)
Thus, even a 320 HDD iPod does have its uses, its just not economically viable for Apple, especially because Flash is the future. In a few(or more) years i expect 256 GB + flash touches
Sorry but I'm not buying that argument. The entire Seinfeld collection can fit into 32GB - that's 180 episodes = 90 hours. Unless you are watching them all back to back during the entire trip then there's absolutely no problem and perhaps you shouldn't have gone on the trip if your intention was to watch movies the whole time.
Fair enough, having the whole collection allows you to decide when you get there what you want to watch but it's really not a big problem that Apple would have to cater for a select few people who actually want to have everything with them. Most people will take about 2-3 movies and the next few episodes in a season they are watching in progression along with some music.
Sorry but I'm not buying that argument. The entire Seinfeld collection can fit into 32GB - that's 180 episodes = 90 hours. Unless you are watching them all back to back during the entire trip then there's absolutely no problem and perhaps you shouldn't have gone on the trip if your intention was to watch movies the whole time.
Fair enough, having the whole collection allows you to decide when you get there what you want to watch but it's really not a big problem that Apple would have to cater for a select few people who actually want to have everything with them. Most people will take about 2-3 movies and the next few episodes in a season they are watching in progression along with some music.
I'm wondering when it came to pass that those of us who want to carry our entire collection around went from "virtually everyone" when the iPod came out to "select few" now.
Oh, and for the record, Toshiba introduced a 240GB HD to replace the 160. I think there's a good chance that it could find it's way into an iPod Classic at some point (price may be too high right now).
I'm wondering when it came to pass that those of us who want to carry our entire collection around went from "virtually everyone" when the iPod came out to "select few" now.
Just yesterday. You didn't get Steve's memo?
Seriously though, I doubt that it was virtually everyone. Nobody I know who has ipods do this. They have the older white models 60GB, the new black 80GB ones, 8GB iphones, 1GB shuffles, 4GB minis and none of them do this. I only know one person who has kept the larger ipod because they don't change their collection much. The rest have switched to lower sized iphones or ipods because the sync process is part of owning an ipod. It's just a slave device and it has to get charged anyway.
Oh, and for the record, Toshiba introduced a 240GB HD to replace the 160. I think there's a good chance that it could find it's way into an iPod Classic at some point (price may be too high right now).
Maybe but why would they consciously drop the storage? If capacity was a bigger concern than price then they wouldn't have done it. When they make 120GB the biggest in the lineup and say it's one size fits all - note that they didn't leave the 160GB as an option - they are suggesting to people that this is the biggest size you should need. If you have more content than this then an ipod is not where you should be storing it.
Next year the classic could have more storage but they are struggling to push their touch innovations into the click-wheel models so sooner or later, they will have to go.
Here's one thing I'm thinking about in the whole price drop scenario. Have Apple really cut back on their margins with the ipod line? All the price drops seem to be either related to unifying the lineup or dropping capacity. This makes me think that any margin cut-backs are being saved for the Macs.
Sorry but I'm not buying that argument. The entire Seinfeld collection can fit into 32GB - that's 180 episodes = 90 hours. Unless you are watching them all back to back during the entire trip then there's absolutely no problem and perhaps you shouldn't have gone on the trip if your intention was to watch movies the whole time.
Fair enough, having the whole collection allows you to decide when you get there what you want to watch but it's really not a big problem that Apple would have to cater for a select few people who actually want to have everything with them. Most people will take about 2-3 movies and the next few episodes in a season they are watching in progression along with some music.
I don't see that as a reason not to offer it, once flash prices come down, of course.
You sound like the people that were convinced a 256MB flash card was enough back when the iPod came out. Just choose the music you want to carry with you. Except that the purpose of the iPod Classic is to be able to take your ENTIRE music library with you. The concept of all your music in your pocket is what made the iPod so great. I loathe having to decide which music I will and won't listen to, especially on a long trip. You also totally discount that a lot of people have lossless music that takes up much, much more space than AAC or MP3. Looks like I am going to have to track down a 160GB Classic before they're gone.
Infinitespecter, go to J&R in NY to get your 160GB iPod. I want to put every song I own on mine (and I rip using CD lossless, so songs take up a lot of memory), so when Apple announced the death of the 160GB, I decided I had better get one! It's a helluva step up from my 40GB monochromatic Click Wheel model (4G). Not long ago, that model was $349 at Apple stores. J&R used to sell it at $299. I just got mine for $280, plus $7 shipping! I guess it doesn't have Genius built in (does the 120GB?), but I couldn't be happier with the capacity!!
http://www.jr.com/product/productLis...Ntt=160GB+ipod