I don't think that battle can be won. By the time a 250GB model is viable, I would bet that your media collection would be in the terabyte range.
I agree with you. This is exactly why I don't believe Apple would release a new generation product with a lesser amount of storage and kill the higher storage model. They may come out with an iPhone - phone product with more NAND capacity, but until they could build a >80GB affordable NAND model I don't think the HDD models are going anywhere.
They would have to brand it with google and enter into some sort of profit sharing agreement (much like the phone I assume). Which coudl be done, seeing the current configuration of the board of Directors on Apple....
Globally, there are only 2 companies that could provide coverage of the type that Apple would want if it had such a device, and to be successfull and as reliable as google/mapquest they would probally blend data from both companies into a uniform product. The 'Maps' program possibly included in the upcomming version of osx (and the Ipod discussed in this thread) would most likely make use of google maps if it exists and they would cover it with a skin. Which sounds kind of worthless, considering a quick trip to google maps would do the same thing (and you woudl have to be connected to the internet anyways).
Futhermore, not all area's of the globe are covered reliably and Apple sells globally (take google earth to South Africa, Australia northern coast for a test) and the second a product was launched by Apple that contained this many holes, it would provide fodder for blogs, Windows marketing, and this site to blast Apple for being wrong, when technically it is not them who are making the actual data- just creating a portal for another companies database and end-product.
I work for the firm that would have to provide the navigitable database to apple for this product and they are not a customer for such a product, nor would they be allowed to procure data from a vendor such as Garmin, etc
I too want a 100gb widescreen ipod. I don't even care if it's done by shrinking the click and pushing it down a-la zune. Something like that would be very useful to me over the next year for movies and music on the go. Reducing capacity is not an option for me.
maybe they could try flash in the 30gb model but would the even be able to keep the price the same or would it go up? If it could be the same it'd be cool and make for a smart trial before they move that capacity up the chain.
I've asked this before but have never gotten a response. Are Flash based RAIDs possible? If so, then two or more 35G flash drives could provide expanded storage for future Flash based iPods.
That's an excellent question and would be really interesting.
I DON'T give a crap about video. It's the music stupid (to quote a familiar Amercian Political phrase). My 80GB iPod is FULL with over 19,000+ songs. Bring on a 100, 120, 200 GB iPod so I can get more of my music loaded!!!!!! PLEEZE NOT SMALLER!
Tortora said the question becomes whether or not 32GB contains sufficient capacity to store video content.
Why wouldn't it? How much video do you really need to carry with you at all times? With h.264, I can compress video to 720x388 near-DVD quality at 700MB for two hours. An iPod won't need that kind of resolution, so it should be able to hold much more, maybe 50% more video at 576 pixels wide, still good enough for watching on a regular screen up to 20" or so and more than enough for an iPod's display. So assuming 500MB for two hours, you're talking 128 hours of video on a 32GB iPod. I don't think I need to carry that much.
I know for me I also need a bigger ipod. Currently have a 60GB Photo but all full with just music. I might use video once in a great while but in encoding all of my music in lossless has it over 150GB and I'm still re-ripping my cd's. It's also the reason I only use itms for an instant gratification thing. Never the whole album as 128k is not even close to adequate. Really wish they'd change that to get whatever bit rate I want even if it cost me just a bit more.
Having flash instead of HD is one of the few things that would make me swap my 60Gb for something new. I don't need any more features, but a smaller form factor would be nice. Crossing fingers for a 64GB one (32GB would be too small), but I think we'll be lucky to even see that size in 2008, certainly not in 2007.
Perhaps they could replace the low-end (currently 30 gig) ipod with flash, but I really can't see them using flash for the bigger one at this point.
Totally agree. there is a market for large capacity iPods and this analysis doesn't look past video playback as a use. I use my 60G iPod for large file transfer and transporting some favourite apps as well as music - it's not even video capable and I wouldn't want to go to a smaller option.
I've asked this before but have never gotten a response. Are Flash based RAIDs possible? If so, then two or more 35G flash drives could provide expanded storage for future Flash based iPods.
This is exactly the question I had. I don't care if 32Gb Flash is the max -- if you can RAID 4 of them together to make a 128Gb "drive".
Lower battery usage would be nice. Imagine a video iPod with 20 hours of Battery?
Flash is slower than HDD, right? Hopefully it isn't slow enough to be an impact for video...
I don't see why not. There is no privacy problem to worry about.
It could work something like this:
The first time that the iPod connects to iTunes, and thus Apple, then Apple will tell the iPod that it's been stolen or lost. If stolen the iPod tell Apple where it is and starts tracking when it goes and everytime it reconnects to iTunes it reports back to Apple all the locations. All this without the theif being notified. You then get the notification and can release the information so it can be sent to the police.
If you just lost the iPod then a message could be displayed on the iPod screen teling the finder to call a toll free number so it can be returned. If they fail to call within say 5 days it then becomes a stolen iPod.
The next fellow has an 80 GB and would prefer a 200 GB.
But of course! Isn't everyone's iPod is full all the time?
Changing to flash based storage prematurely would be Apple style indeed. Stevie would take the stage and tell us that they're "the first to introduce a 32GB flash based music player ever". He would go on and say that "we discovered that most people's iPods are always full. But not because they need it to be, but because they can fill it up." If an iPod was 500 GB it would be full too. But there would be material on the ipod for viewing and listening several months straight!
I say go for flash! 32GB is cool for me. Perhaps they realized their 30 GB model of today is outselling the 80 GB model and decided it's time?
2 years from now flash will start to match up in capacity and price anyway.
This is exactly the question I had. I don't care if 32Gb Flash is the max -- if you can RAID 4 of them together to make a 128Gb "drive".
Why would anybody RAID together multiple 32G flash drives intead of simply hanging 128G worth of flash memory chips off of a single flash file system controller?
I think the 32G "limit" described is a limit only in terms of price and physical space within an iPod's shell.
It is OK to base most models on Flash rather than HD, which makes sense. But please, Apple, keep at least one high end model with maximum capacity. I am eagerly waiting to buy a few 120GB iPods, and in fact that is still way too small for me. I wish there were 300-500GB iPods already. I can fill them easily, and I am sure others can too...
Am I the only person in the world who thinks it's utterly ridiculous to store your entire movie, picture, and music collection on a fragile portable device?
I realize that the process of actually changing your playlists and removing content you don't use anymore once every couple of weeks or so may be too cumbersome and baffling for some, but get over it! The hard drive was never designed to be bounced around continuously in your pocket. I'm ready for the transition to solid state hardware and better battery life.
Personally, I'm waiting for the day when the hard drive is completely obsolete. I've seen way too many hard drive crashes and heard too many horror stories of people losing a lot of work to them.
I wish there were 300-500GB iPods already. I can fill them easily, and I am sure others can too...
Unfortunately, the drives don't exist, and I don't think many people would want to buy an extra-large iPod with a 3.5" hard drive in it (and the accompanying battery needed to run it for 8-12 hours).
I realize that the process of actually changing your playlists and removing content you don't use anymore once every couple of weeks or so may be too cumbersome and baffling for some, but get over it!
Translation: "I don't need one, so everybody who thinks they do is insane, stupid, or in dire need of re-education".
Well thank you very much. Remind me to vote for someone else when the ballot goes around to elect a god.
Comments
I don't think that battle can be won. By the time a 250GB model is viable, I would bet that your media collection would be in the terabyte range.
I agree with you. This is exactly why I don't believe Apple would release a new generation product with a lesser amount of storage and kill the higher storage model. They may come out with an iPhone - phone product with more NAND capacity, but until they could build a >80GB affordable NAND model I don't think the HDD models are going anywhere.
Google. (they have data and know how to search)
They would have to brand it with google and enter into some sort of profit sharing agreement (much like the phone I assume). Which coudl be done, seeing the current configuration of the board of Directors on Apple....
Globally, there are only 2 companies that could provide coverage of the type that Apple would want if it had such a device, and to be successfull and as reliable as google/mapquest they would probally blend data from both companies into a uniform product. The 'Maps' program possibly included in the upcomming version of osx (and the Ipod discussed in this thread) would most likely make use of google maps if it exists and they would cover it with a skin. Which sounds kind of worthless, considering a quick trip to google maps would do the same thing (and you woudl have to be connected to the internet anyways).
Futhermore, not all area's of the globe are covered reliably and Apple sells globally (take google earth to South Africa, Australia northern coast for a test) and the second a product was launched by Apple that contained this many holes, it would provide fodder for blogs, Windows marketing, and this site to blast Apple for being wrong, when technically it is not them who are making the actual data- just creating a portal for another companies database and end-product.
I work for the firm that would have to provide the navigitable database to apple for this product and they are not a customer for such a product, nor would they be allowed to procure data from a vendor such as Garmin, etc
I don't understand what you mean.
maybe they could try flash in the 30gb model but would the even be able to keep the price the same or would it go up? If it could be the same it'd be cool and make for a smart trial before they move that capacity up the chain.
Effectively making 2 different video ipods.
I've asked this before but have never gotten a response. Are Flash based RAIDs possible? If so, then two or more 35G flash drives could provide expanded storage for future Flash based iPods.
That's an excellent question and would be really interesting.
But how much would that up the cost?
Tortora said the question becomes whether or not 32GB contains sufficient capacity to store video content.
Why wouldn't it? How much video do you really need to carry with you at all times? With h.264, I can compress video to 720x388 near-DVD quality at 700MB for two hours. An iPod won't need that kind of resolution, so it should be able to hold much more, maybe 50% more video at 576 pixels wide, still good enough for watching on a regular screen up to 20" or so and more than enough for an iPod's display. So assuming 500MB for two hours, you're talking 128 hours of video on a 32GB iPod. I don't think I need to carry that much.
Perhaps they could replace the low-end (currently 30 gig) ipod with flash, but I really can't see them using flash for the bigger one at this point.
Totally agree. there is a market for large capacity iPods and this analysis doesn't look past video playback as a use. I use my 60G iPod for large file transfer and transporting some favourite apps as well as music - it's not even video capable and I wouldn't want to go to a smaller option.
I've asked this before but have never gotten a response. Are Flash based RAIDs possible? If so, then two or more 35G flash drives could provide expanded storage for future Flash based iPods.
This is exactly the question I had. I don't care if 32Gb Flash is the max -- if you can RAID 4 of them together to make a 128Gb "drive".
Lower battery usage would be nice. Imagine a video iPod with 20 hours of Battery?
Flash is slower than HDD, right? Hopefully it isn't slow enough to be an impact for video...
Ridiculous! That is not gonna happen!
I don't see why not. There is no privacy problem to worry about.
It could work something like this:
The first time that the iPod connects to iTunes, and thus Apple, then Apple will tell the iPod that it's been stolen or lost. If stolen the iPod tell Apple where it is and starts tracking when it goes and everytime it reconnects to iTunes it reports back to Apple all the locations. All this without the theif being notified. You then get the notification and can release the information so it can be sent to the police.
If you just lost the iPod then a message could be displayed on the iPod screen teling the finder to call a toll free number so it can be returned. If they fail to call within say 5 days it then becomes a stolen iPod.
Just a thought.
This is exactlyFlash is slower than HDD, right? Hopefully it isn't slow enough to be an impact for video...
Wrong. NAND is much faster than HDD. If it wasn't, Intel wouldn't be trying to incorporate NAND as a boot/OS drive in laptops.
Someone's got a 30 GB and need a 60 GB.
The next fellow has an 80 GB and would prefer a 200 GB.
But of course! Isn't everyone's iPod is full all the time?
Changing to flash based storage prematurely would be Apple style indeed. Stevie would take the stage and tell us that they're "the first to introduce a 32GB flash based music player ever". He would go on and say that "we discovered that most people's iPods are always full. But not because they need it to be, but because they can fill it up." If an iPod was 500 GB it would be full too. But there would be material on the ipod for viewing and listening several months straight!
I say go for flash! 32GB is cool for me. Perhaps they realized their 30 GB model of today is outselling the 80 GB model and decided it's time?
2 years from now flash will start to match up in capacity and price anyway.
This is exactly the question I had. I don't care if 32Gb Flash is the max -- if you can RAID 4 of them together to make a 128Gb "drive".
Why would anybody RAID together multiple 32G flash drives intead of simply hanging 128G worth of flash memory chips off of a single flash file system controller?
I think the 32G "limit" described is a limit only in terms of price and physical space within an iPod's shell.
I realize that the process of actually changing your playlists and removing content you don't use anymore once every couple of weeks or so may be too cumbersome and baffling for some, but get over it! The hard drive was never designed to be bounced around continuously in your pocket. I'm ready for the transition to solid state hardware and better battery life.
Personally, I'm waiting for the day when the hard drive is completely obsolete. I've seen way too many hard drive crashes and heard too many horror stories of people losing a lot of work to them.
I wish there were 300-500GB iPods already. I can fill them easily, and I am sure others can too...
Unfortunately, the drives don't exist, and I don't think many people would want to buy an extra-large iPod with a 3.5" hard drive in it (and the accompanying battery needed to run it for 8-12 hours).
I realize that the process of actually changing your playlists and removing content you don't use anymore once every couple of weeks or so may be too cumbersome and baffling for some, but get over it!
Translation: "I don't need one, so everybody who thinks they do is insane, stupid, or in dire need of re-education".
Well thank you very much. Remind me to vote for someone else when the ballot goes around to elect a god.
I believe the first shuffle or nano had a couple of 2 gig flash chips in there -- or some size like that.