1) The iPhone currently has far more storage than pretty much any other phone or smartphone.
2) The vast majority of iPod sales has in the past few years consistently been in the area of 4 GBs. This is reflected not only in Apple's product line-up, which emphasizes the nano the most, rather than the regular-sized iPod, but more importantly in the average selling price.
The iPhone's capacity will likely double just about every year anyway, making this a moot point in the long run.
I don't disagree with any particular point, but I do think you are missing one of mine:
The reason 4-8 gigs is enough for the nanos is because many people don't have a music collection larger than that. That's a lot of space for just music.
The iPod video is for those with larger collections but it's still that: an iPod that happens to play video. An iPod dedicated to storing and viewing videos hasn't yet been released, and that's my point: Apple can apply this interface to anything they want. The reason iPhone has 4-8GB of storage is because Apple is intending for this to be the first of many products with multitouch.
A stand-alone Video iPod would be a great compliment for those who wish to actually view movies on the go. But, again, storage would be an issue. I'm struggling with juggling video files on my own 5G iPod. I know I'm not the only one.
I don't disagree with any particular point, but I do think you are missing one of mine:
The reason 4-8 gigs is enough for the nanos is because many people don't have a music collection larger than that. That's a lot of space for just music.
The iPod video is for those with larger collections but it's still that: an iPod that happens to play video. An iPod dedicated to storing and viewing videos hasn't yet been released, and that's my point: Apple can apply this interface to anything they want. The reason iPhone has 4-8GB of storage is because Apple is intending for this to be the first of many products with multitouch.
A stand-alone Video iPod would be a great compliment for those who wish to actually view movies on the go. But, again, storage would be an issue. I'm struggling with juggling video files on my own 5G iPod. I know I'm not the only one.
I doubt there's much of a market for an iPod that focuses more on video. Apple doesn't seem to think so either. Such a device would inevitably be rather clunky, anyway.
I doubt there's much of a market for an iPod that focuses more on video. Apple doesn't seem to think so either. Such a device would inevitably be rather clunky, anyway.
Not necessarily. Apple could release an iPhone without the iPhone.app and the cellular connectivity. All of the R&D has already been done, they just need to add a larger drive. That was what my first post was about.
Maybe a dumb question, but what is the difference between a wireless card
and WiFi built-in? I was under the impression, that the iPhone contains a
small but standard "wireless card" aka "Airport Card", no? Given that, i thought,
that the iPhone could connect to any given wireless Internet signal, no?
So even i can't use the iphone as a cell phone (in Europe) for a while,
i could use it as a small Internet station - and as an iPod of course.
Just curious.
There is no option for WiFi, as it built-in. Wireless cards are for when the manufacturer wants to have the option of including it or not, as Apple has done over the years with their Bluetooth and WiFi cards, first making them an option, and only later including them in the standard config.
There is simply no room for even a small extra pc board. Everything is surface mounted these days to save space.
I'm speculating about the WiFi access.
But as Pogue has said in one of the quotes I supplied earlier, the phone won't be supplied without a sim card for a service, whichever ones it will work with in Europe as well.
The sim card can easily specify how the WiFi works, just as the phone companies can spec it here.
Without a working sim card, the WiFi could be limited to whatever Apple, and the participating companies want it to be. This is not a technical impossibility, it;'s done all the time.
The point of the new drives are that flash prices are dropping rapidly and will drop even faster as they get adopted into sub-notebooks. The power requirements for that particular drive is 0.4W and retail costs are exepcted to be $600 for 32GB which is half the price for 32GB last fall (octoberish). If that scales then new retail 16GB drives might appear at old 8GB pricing (~$300) and so forth.
Apple turned down hybrids last year (was it samsung?) and they have good contracts with flash suppliers so they can do far better then retail pricing. An 8GB Nano is only $249 which is far less than the price you see for flash SSD on the retail market from last fall or even today...and $300 was a CHEAP price last fall from 1 manufacturer and it was dog slow in comparison to other flash SSD drives. Not the $600 for 8GB you see on DVNation.
Using your same arguments the 8GB Nano is also clearly "impossible" at $249 because DVNation prices are so high.
Vinea
No one knows when it will be produced, as they haven't committed to a date, nor does anyone know how much it will cost, though there is always speculation. There is nothing special about the chips they use that will make it cheaper than any other current card out at the time, though I don't expect it to cost $2,000, or more, as 32 GB cards do now.
The power used is much higher than what is used for the 8 GB in devices now. I'n not comparing it to a HD, but to lesse amounts of SS.
Their prices aren't higher than any other company selling the same products. But, those products are complete drives, so the prices are bound to be higher than memory alone. But, they give a good indication as to pricing.
There is also slow FLASH, and fast FLASH, the difference in price can be two or four times higher for the faster memory, as it is not the same as the slow part. But, you know that.
So, it would also depend on what parts Apple would want to use. The drives on that page were all fast FLASH, and so cost more.
But, your assumed pricing is wrong. Today, if Apple wanted to have their phones with double the FLASH, the prices would be at least $200 more for the current 4 GB model, because it would then become the 8 GB model, and at least $300 more for the 8 GB model, which would become the 16 GB model.
The Nano uses slow FLASH, which, as I said, is much cheaper.
I never said this wouldn't change in the future. I said that it will. But, not on a 6 month time schedule.
I don't disagree with any particular point, but I do think you are missing one of mine:
The reason 4-8 gigs is enough for the nanos is because many people don't have a music collection larger than that. That's a lot of space for just music.
The iPod video is for those with larger collections but it's still that: an iPod that happens to play video. An iPod dedicated to storing and viewing videos hasn't yet been released, and that's my point: Apple can apply this interface to anything they want. The reason iPhone has 4-8GB of storage is because Apple is intending for this to be the first of many products with multitouch.
A stand-alone Video iPod would be a great compliment for those who wish to actually view movies on the go. But, again, storage would be an issue. I'm struggling with juggling video files on my own 5G iPod. I know I'm not the only one.
People who insist that large numbers of videos will be kept on their iPods, ior iPhones are also missing the point. People are simply not going to keep that stuff on their handheld devices. They will remove them once they have watched them.
Over the years, as memory gets cheaper, smaller, and consumes less power, then more will be added, just as it was everywhere else.
But, it isn't going to happen right now.
It doesn't matter how somw people cry for it, when it is ready, we will see it.
Otherwise, there would be over a dozen compact notebooks with all FLASH based storage already, and there isn't!
There will be, but there isn't now, except possibly for special-built units for the millitary.
Not necessarily. Apple could release an iPhone without the iPhone.app and the cellular connectivity. All of the R&D has already been done, they just need to add a larger drive. That was what my first post was about.
And, if they do, they will add a conventional hd, unless they want to maintain the $500 and $650 price points, evidence for which is lacking, and is actually otherwise.
Removing all of the phone circuitry, as well as WiFi, and possibly Bluetooth, might allow them to double the FLASH (using the cheaper FLASH), with lower margins. But, who would buy such expensive iPods, despite them having large hi-rez screens and multitouch?
Unlike any other phone the iPhone is designed to directly connect and easily download movies, television shows, music videos, music tracks, audio books, video games, podcasts. 8GB is clearly not enough if one indulged in all of this content.
It seems much of the rationale that makes 8Gb ok is that people won't use much of this content or store it for very long. What would be the point of Apple setting up this business model only for people to not take full advantage of it.
Looking at the fact that Samsung was willing to dedicate 40% of its manufacturing capacity, with discounts, and exclusive SSD for the iPod, clearly shows that the manufacturers are willing to be very flexible. If 4GB SDD retails for $400 today it was closer to $1000 two years ago when Apple began using them in the $250 iPod nano.
I'm sure the retail price has nothing to do with what Apple pays. Because if Samsung helps sell more iPods or iPhones then Samsung sells more SDD's
And, if they do, they will add a conventional hd, unless they want to maintain the $500 and $650 price points, evidence for which is lacking, and is actually otherwise.
Removing all of the phone circuitry, as well as WiFi, and possibly Bluetooth, might allow them to double the FLASH (using the cheaper FLASH), with lower margins. But, who would buy such expensive iPods, despite them having large hi-rez screens and multitouch?
I'm not saying what type of drive they'll use, I'm just saying that a true Video iPod based on the iPhone design makes sense.
Why remove wifi and bluetooth? Keep them. It makes this new iPod infinitely more useable and infinitely more expandable. (A software interface plus the ability to pair via blue-tooth to whatever Apple wants equals pretty powerful potential.)
As for: people remove videos after they watch them from their media players: bullshit. Maybe YOU do that. I don't. I have an iPod with video specifically for watching videos on the go, and they don't get deleted: they get more videos added to them.
Only time I'm deleting videos is when I've run out of space.
Unlike any other phone the iPhone is designed to directly connect and easily download movies, television shows, music videos, music tracks, audio books, video games, podcasts. 8GB is clearly not enough if one indulged in all of this content.
It seems much of the rationale that makes 8Gb ok is that people won't use much of this content or store it for very long. What would be the point of Apple setting up this business model only for people to not take full advantage of it.
Looking at the fact that Samsung was willing to dedicate 40% of its manufacturing capacity, with discounts, and exclusive SSD for the iPod, clearly shows that the manufacturers are willing to be very flexible. If 4GB SDD retails for $400 today it was closer to $1000 two years ago when Apple began using them in the $250 iPod nano.
I'm sure the retail price has nothing to do with what Apple pays. Because if Samsung helps sell more iPods or iPhones then Samsung sells more SDD's
You keep making that unsupported statement. I'd like to know just how much video the 5.5 G models have on them. So, far, those figures have not come out, except for some uneducated guesses.
Taking full advantge of Apple's services means using those services as one likes. you, and one or two others here, seem to think that it means carrying your entire video library around with them all the time. Most people don't carry their entire music library around with them all of the time.
Do you have an 80 GB 5,5 G iPod? You would seem to someone who would, from what you are saying. And, I would imagine that you have it almost filled.
Would that be the case? It's the least popular version, you know.
Samsung wasn't "willing" to devote production to this. They were paid to do it. And, it wasn't 40% of their manufacturing capacity. It was 40% of the current FLASH capacity.
I agree with the price drops. That will happen. I keep saying it will happen. It just hasn't happened yet.
I'm sure the retail price has nothing to do with what Apple pays. Because if Samsung helps sell more iPods or iPhones then Samsung sells more SDD's
I don't think that matters. Apple may pay well below prevailing wholesale, but the cost that they will tack onto the final device will probably be higher than retail for just the drive.
A picture of a SanDisk 32GB flash drive in a 1.8" case.
That's a nice picture, really, but an iPhone with that drive will be about as thick as Palm's LifeDrive, which actually has a 1" microdrive. I think a larger capacity device would be nice, but it's unrealistic at the moment and most iPod buyers seem to be content with 4GB.
I'm not saying what type of drive they'll use, I'm just saying that a true Video iPod based on the iPhone design makes sense.
We all agree on that. But, our argument is about the amount, and type of memory the iPhone will have.
Quote:
Why remove wifi and bluetooth? Keep them. It makes this new iPod infinitely more useable and infinitely more expandable. (A software interface plus the ability to pair via blue-tooth to whatever Apple wants equals pretty powerful potential.)
An iPod would be expected to have more, and so it would have to be HD based, unless most features are removed for cost reasons, space limitations, and battery usage.
As Apple has not chosen to to emulate the sharing capabilities that MS has built into the Zune, what other purpose would WiFi in an iPod serve? You can't use it to sync the iPhone, why would Apple change that for the much less important needs in that area an iPod would have?
Bluetooth would be usable for wireless stereo headphones, at least, but for nothing else, as Apple doesn't allow syncing with that either in the iPhone.
But, for cost, space, and battery life reasons, if Apple chose to go with massive amounts of SS memory right now, it might have to go.
Quote:
As for: people remove videos after they watch them from their media players: bullshit. Maybe YOU do that. I don't. I have an iPod with video specifically for watching videos on the go, and they don't get deleted: they get more videos added to them.
Only time I'm deleting videos is when I've run out of space.
Bullshit yourself. You are only one person, don't you dare to pretend you know what others will do.
I've agreed that there will be people for whom this will not serve, because of memory limitations.
But, if you've been paying attention to reports about iPod usage, you would see that most people don't fill them up, prefer the ones will LESS memory, because price is more of an issue, and, so far at least, would rather watch the video they buy on their computers, rather than on their portable devices. And when they do watch them on their portable players, they do so as a novelty, with lessening usage as time goes on.
Personally, I'd love to have an 100GB iPod Video based on the iPhone design without iPhone.app or the cell functionality. WiFi would still be a good feature for the same reason it's a good feature in iPhone. Blue-tooth makes sense as well because Apple could pair it up with anything. For instance, a few months after iPhone comes out, Apple releases Maps.app plus GPS unit which syncs over bluetooth. Boom. Instant GPS. (Think of Nike+iPod sports kit add on.)
(Of course, I'll still be buying an iPhone, though.)
All I'm saying is that this current design is brilliant because its applications are limitless. I don't think you're getting the points of my posts, though, so I'll share them somewhere else.
I have a 30GB iPod and I'm taking a look at what's on it. Actually I don't really pay much attention to what's on my iPod or how much room is being used.
I have a little over 11.5GB of music. 450 songs, they are mostly encoded in Apple Lossless.
Over 5GB of video. A couple of television shows, two movies ripped with Handbreak. About 20 music videos. My cinematography reel and a couple of my music videos.
About 100MB of various other software.
So that comes out to 20.76 GB of 30GB used. That's from leisurely use. You are right other people are going to be different from me. Some people are probably going to use more audio than video, but some are going to use more video than audio. The point is I'm free to choose.
Quote:
I don't think that matters. Apple may pay well below prevailing wholesale, but the cost that they will tack onto the final device will probably be higher than retail for just the drive.
What do you mean? The cost for Apple or to the consumer?
Quote:
That's a nice picture, really, but an iPhone with that drive will be about as thick as Palm's LifeDrive.
Personally, I'd love to have an 100GB iPod Video based on the iPhone design without iPhone.app or the cell functionality. WiFi would still be a good feature for the same reason it's a good feature in iPhone. Blue-tooth makes sense as well because Apple could pair it up with anything. For instance, a few months after iPhone comes out, Apple releases Maps.app plus GPS unit which syncs over bluetooth. Boom. Instant GPS. (Think of Nike+iPod sports kit add on.)
(Of course, I'll still be buying an iPhone, though.)
All I'm saying is that this current design is brilliant because its applications are limitless. I don't think you're getting the points of my posts, though, so I'll share them somewhere else.
The problem is that you assume that the typical owner does what you do, and that's often not true. I agree there is a lot of potential, but Apple doesn't have a track record of giving the power users everything that they want. A lot of what you say makes sense, but Apple marches to their own drummer. I don't think that Melgross thinks that your ideas are bad, just that, as I said, Apple doesn't work that way. Melgross is basically extrapolating based on what they've done before, which works as a better predictor of what they will do than the wishlists of power users would be. I guess I'm being too redundant in stating this point.
In that dvnation page Mel linked to had 4GB flash for $399, which Apple uses in the $199 nano.
Are you sure it is the same device, or are you comparing two dissimilar devices with dissimilar function that happen to have the same capacity? The nano's flash module is just a couple of flash chips on a board, without a drive controller.
Are you sure it is the same device, or are you comparing two dissimilar devices with dissimilar function that happen to have the same capacity
You are probably right. But how much more can controllers and connectors add to the price when the flash chips are primary point of the device?
To sell the $199 nano and make a healthy profit Apple has to be buying its flash chips for a fraction of that price.
iSuppli had that break down of the iPhone and reported that Apple could be making as much as 50% profit one reason being that 4/8 GB of flash should be so cheap for Apple at this point.
Comments
Bingo.
1) The iPhone currently has far more storage than pretty much any other phone or smartphone.
2) The vast majority of iPod sales has in the past few years consistently been in the area of 4 GBs. This is reflected not only in Apple's product line-up, which emphasizes the nano the most, rather than the regular-sized iPod, but more importantly in the average selling price.
The iPhone's capacity will likely double just about every year anyway, making this a moot point in the long run.
I don't disagree with any particular point, but I do think you are missing one of mine:
The reason 4-8 gigs is enough for the nanos is because many people don't have a music collection larger than that. That's a lot of space for just music.
The iPod video is for those with larger collections but it's still that: an iPod that happens to play video. An iPod dedicated to storing and viewing videos hasn't yet been released, and that's my point: Apple can apply this interface to anything they want. The reason iPhone has 4-8GB of storage is because Apple is intending for this to be the first of many products with multitouch.
A stand-alone Video iPod would be a great compliment for those who wish to actually view movies on the go. But, again, storage would be an issue. I'm struggling with juggling video files on my own 5G iPod. I know I'm not the only one.
I don't disagree with any particular point, but I do think you are missing one of mine:
The reason 4-8 gigs is enough for the nanos is because many people don't have a music collection larger than that. That's a lot of space for just music.
The iPod video is for those with larger collections but it's still that: an iPod that happens to play video. An iPod dedicated to storing and viewing videos hasn't yet been released, and that's my point: Apple can apply this interface to anything they want. The reason iPhone has 4-8GB of storage is because Apple is intending for this to be the first of many products with multitouch.
A stand-alone Video iPod would be a great compliment for those who wish to actually view movies on the go. But, again, storage would be an issue. I'm struggling with juggling video files on my own 5G iPod. I know I'm not the only one.
I doubt there's much of a market for an iPod that focuses more on video. Apple doesn't seem to think so either. Such a device would inevitably be rather clunky, anyway.
I doubt there's much of a market for an iPod that focuses more on video. Apple doesn't seem to think so either. Such a device would inevitably be rather clunky, anyway.
Not necessarily. Apple could release an iPhone without the iPhone.app and the cellular connectivity. All of the R&D has already been done, they just need to add a larger drive. That was what my first post was about.
Maybe a dumb question, but what is the difference between a wireless card
and WiFi built-in? I was under the impression, that the iPhone contains a
small but standard "wireless card" aka "Airport Card", no? Given that, i thought,
that the iPhone could connect to any given wireless Internet signal, no?
So even i can't use the iphone as a cell phone (in Europe) for a while,
i could use it as a small Internet station - and as an iPod of course.
Just curious.
There is no option for WiFi, as it built-in. Wireless cards are for when the manufacturer wants to have the option of including it or not, as Apple has done over the years with their Bluetooth and WiFi cards, first making them an option, and only later including them in the standard config.
There is simply no room for even a small extra pc board. Everything is surface mounted these days to save space.
I'm speculating about the WiFi access.
But as Pogue has said in one of the quotes I supplied earlier, the phone won't be supplied without a sim card for a service, whichever ones it will work with in Europe as well.
The sim card can easily specify how the WiFi works, just as the phone companies can spec it here.
Without a working sim card, the WiFi could be limited to whatever Apple, and the participating companies want it to be. This is not a technical impossibility, it;'s done all the time.
The point of the new drives are that flash prices are dropping rapidly and will drop even faster as they get adopted into sub-notebooks. The power requirements for that particular drive is 0.4W and retail costs are exepcted to be $600 for 32GB which is half the price for 32GB last fall (octoberish). If that scales then new retail 16GB drives might appear at old 8GB pricing (~$300) and so forth.
Apple turned down hybrids last year (was it samsung?) and they have good contracts with flash suppliers so they can do far better then retail pricing. An 8GB Nano is only $249 which is far less than the price you see for flash SSD on the retail market from last fall or even today...and $300 was a CHEAP price last fall from 1 manufacturer and it was dog slow in comparison to other flash SSD drives. Not the $600 for 8GB you see on DVNation.
Using your same arguments the 8GB Nano is also clearly "impossible" at $249 because DVNation prices are so high.
Vinea
No one knows when it will be produced, as they haven't committed to a date, nor does anyone know how much it will cost, though there is always speculation. There is nothing special about the chips they use that will make it cheaper than any other current card out at the time, though I don't expect it to cost $2,000, or more, as 32 GB cards do now.
The power used is much higher than what is used for the 8 GB in devices now. I'n not comparing it to a HD, but to lesse amounts of SS.
Their prices aren't higher than any other company selling the same products. But, those products are complete drives, so the prices are bound to be higher than memory alone. But, they give a good indication as to pricing.
There is also slow FLASH, and fast FLASH, the difference in price can be two or four times higher for the faster memory, as it is not the same as the slow part. But, you know that.
So, it would also depend on what parts Apple would want to use. The drives on that page were all fast FLASH, and so cost more.
But, your assumed pricing is wrong. Today, if Apple wanted to have their phones with double the FLASH, the prices would be at least $200 more for the current 4 GB model, because it would then become the 8 GB model, and at least $300 more for the 8 GB model, which would become the 16 GB model.
The Nano uses slow FLASH, which, as I said, is much cheaper.
I never said this wouldn't change in the future. I said that it will. But, not on a 6 month time schedule.
I don't disagree with any particular point, but I do think you are missing one of mine:
The reason 4-8 gigs is enough for the nanos is because many people don't have a music collection larger than that. That's a lot of space for just music.
The iPod video is for those with larger collections but it's still that: an iPod that happens to play video. An iPod dedicated to storing and viewing videos hasn't yet been released, and that's my point: Apple can apply this interface to anything they want. The reason iPhone has 4-8GB of storage is because Apple is intending for this to be the first of many products with multitouch.
A stand-alone Video iPod would be a great compliment for those who wish to actually view movies on the go. But, again, storage would be an issue. I'm struggling with juggling video files on my own 5G iPod. I know I'm not the only one.
People who insist that large numbers of videos will be kept on their iPods, ior iPhones are also missing the point. People are simply not going to keep that stuff on their handheld devices. They will remove them once they have watched them.
Over the years, as memory gets cheaper, smaller, and consumes less power, then more will be added, just as it was everywhere else.
But, it isn't going to happen right now.
It doesn't matter how somw people cry for it, when it is ready, we will see it.
Otherwise, there would be over a dozen compact notebooks with all FLASH based storage already, and there isn't!
There will be, but there isn't now, except possibly for special-built units for the millitary.
Not necessarily. Apple could release an iPhone without the iPhone.app and the cellular connectivity. All of the R&D has already been done, they just need to add a larger drive. That was what my first post was about.
And, if they do, they will add a conventional hd, unless they want to maintain the $500 and $650 price points, evidence for which is lacking, and is actually otherwise.
Removing all of the phone circuitry, as well as WiFi, and possibly Bluetooth, might allow them to double the FLASH (using the cheaper FLASH), with lower margins. But, who would buy such expensive iPods, despite them having large hi-rez screens and multitouch?
It seems much of the rationale that makes 8Gb ok is that people won't use much of this content or store it for very long. What would be the point of Apple setting up this business model only for people to not take full advantage of it.
Looking at the fact that Samsung was willing to dedicate 40% of its manufacturing capacity, with discounts, and exclusive SSD for the iPod, clearly shows that the manufacturers are willing to be very flexible. If 4GB SDD retails for $400 today it was closer to $1000 two years ago when Apple began using them in the $250 iPod nano.
I'm sure the retail price has nothing to do with what Apple pays. Because if Samsung helps sell more iPods or iPhones then Samsung sells more SDD's
And, if they do, they will add a conventional hd, unless they want to maintain the $500 and $650 price points, evidence for which is lacking, and is actually otherwise.
Removing all of the phone circuitry, as well as WiFi, and possibly Bluetooth, might allow them to double the FLASH (using the cheaper FLASH), with lower margins. But, who would buy such expensive iPods, despite them having large hi-rez screens and multitouch?
I'm not saying what type of drive they'll use, I'm just saying that a true Video iPod based on the iPhone design makes sense.
Why remove wifi and bluetooth? Keep them. It makes this new iPod infinitely more useable and infinitely more expandable. (A software interface plus the ability to pair via blue-tooth to whatever Apple wants equals pretty powerful potential.)
As for: people remove videos after they watch them from their media players: bullshit. Maybe YOU do that. I don't. I have an iPod with video specifically for watching videos on the go, and they don't get deleted: they get more videos added to them.
Only time I'm deleting videos is when I've run out of space.
Unlike any other phone the iPhone is designed to directly connect and easily download movies, television shows, music videos, music tracks, audio books, video games, podcasts. 8GB is clearly not enough if one indulged in all of this content.
It seems much of the rationale that makes 8Gb ok is that people won't use much of this content or store it for very long. What would be the point of Apple setting up this business model only for people to not take full advantage of it.
Looking at the fact that Samsung was willing to dedicate 40% of its manufacturing capacity, with discounts, and exclusive SSD for the iPod, clearly shows that the manufacturers are willing to be very flexible. If 4GB SDD retails for $400 today it was closer to $1000 two years ago when Apple began using them in the $250 iPod nano.
I'm sure the retail price has nothing to do with what Apple pays. Because if Samsung helps sell more iPods or iPhones then Samsung sells more SDD's
You keep making that unsupported statement. I'd like to know just how much video the 5.5 G models have on them. So, far, those figures have not come out, except for some uneducated guesses.
Taking full advantge of Apple's services means using those services as one likes. you, and one or two others here, seem to think that it means carrying your entire video library around with them all the time. Most people don't carry their entire music library around with them all of the time.
Do you have an 80 GB 5,5 G iPod? You would seem to someone who would, from what you are saying. And, I would imagine that you have it almost filled.
Would that be the case? It's the least popular version, you know.
Samsung wasn't "willing" to devote production to this. They were paid to do it. And, it wasn't 40% of their manufacturing capacity. It was 40% of the current FLASH capacity.
I agree with the price drops. That will happen. I keep saying it will happen. It just hasn't happened yet.
I'm sure the retail price has nothing to do with what Apple pays. Because if Samsung helps sell more iPods or iPhones then Samsung sells more SDD's
I don't think that matters. Apple may pay well below prevailing wholesale, but the cost that they will tack onto the final device will probably be higher than retail for just the drive.
A picture of a SanDisk 32GB flash drive in a 1.8" case.
That's a nice picture, really, but an iPhone with that drive will be about as thick as Palm's LifeDrive, which actually has a 1" microdrive. I think a larger capacity device would be nice, but it's unrealistic at the moment and most iPod buyers seem to be content with 4GB.
I'm not saying what type of drive they'll use, I'm just saying that a true Video iPod based on the iPhone design makes sense.
We all agree on that. But, our argument is about the amount, and type of memory the iPhone will have.
Why remove wifi and bluetooth? Keep them. It makes this new iPod infinitely more useable and infinitely more expandable. (A software interface plus the ability to pair via blue-tooth to whatever Apple wants equals pretty powerful potential.)
An iPod would be expected to have more, and so it would have to be HD based, unless most features are removed for cost reasons, space limitations, and battery usage.
As Apple has not chosen to to emulate the sharing capabilities that MS has built into the Zune, what other purpose would WiFi in an iPod serve? You can't use it to sync the iPhone, why would Apple change that for the much less important needs in that area an iPod would have?
Bluetooth would be usable for wireless stereo headphones, at least, but for nothing else, as Apple doesn't allow syncing with that either in the iPhone.
But, for cost, space, and battery life reasons, if Apple chose to go with massive amounts of SS memory right now, it might have to go.
As for: people remove videos after they watch them from their media players: bullshit. Maybe YOU do that. I don't. I have an iPod with video specifically for watching videos on the go, and they don't get deleted: they get more videos added to them.
Only time I'm deleting videos is when I've run out of space.
Bullshit yourself. You are only one person, don't you dare to pretend you know what others will do.
I've agreed that there will be people for whom this will not serve, because of memory limitations.
But, if you've been paying attention to reports about iPod usage, you would see that most people don't fill them up, prefer the ones will LESS memory, because price is more of an issue, and, so far at least, would rather watch the video they buy on their computers, rather than on their portable devices. And when they do watch them on their portable players, they do so as a novelty, with lessening usage as time goes on.
(Of course, I'll still be buying an iPhone, though.)
All I'm saying is that this current design is brilliant because its applications are limitless. I don't think you're getting the points of my posts, though, so I'll share them somewhere else.
I have a little over 11.5GB of music. 450 songs, they are mostly encoded in Apple Lossless.
Over 5GB of video. A couple of television shows, two movies ripped with Handbreak. About 20 music videos. My cinematography reel and a couple of my music videos.
About 100MB of various other software.
So that comes out to 20.76 GB of 30GB used. That's from leisurely use. You are right other people are going to be different from me. Some people are probably going to use more audio than video, but some are going to use more video than audio. The point is I'm free to choose.
I don't think that matters. Apple may pay well below prevailing wholesale, but the cost that they will tack onto the final device will probably be higher than retail for just the drive.
What do you mean? The cost for Apple or to the consumer?
That's a nice picture, really, but an iPhone with that drive will be about as thick as Palm's LifeDrive.
Yes you are probably right.
What do you mean? The cost for Apple or to the consumer?
Yes, the cost to the consumer.
Personally, I'd love to have an 100GB iPod Video based on the iPhone design without iPhone.app or the cell functionality. WiFi would still be a good feature for the same reason it's a good feature in iPhone. Blue-tooth makes sense as well because Apple could pair it up with anything. For instance, a few months after iPhone comes out, Apple releases Maps.app plus GPS unit which syncs over bluetooth. Boom. Instant GPS. (Think of Nike+iPod sports kit add on.)
(Of course, I'll still be buying an iPhone, though.)
All I'm saying is that this current design is brilliant because its applications are limitless. I don't think you're getting the points of my posts, though, so I'll share them somewhere else.
The problem is that you assume that the typical owner does what you do, and that's often not true. I agree there is a lot of potential, but Apple doesn't have a track record of giving the power users everything that they want. A lot of what you say makes sense, but Apple marches to their own drummer. I don't think that Melgross thinks that your ideas are bad, just that, as I said, Apple doesn't work that way. Melgross is basically extrapolating based on what they've done before, which works as a better predictor of what they will do than the wishlists of power users would be. I guess I'm being too redundant in stating this point.
What do you mean? The cost for Apple or to the consumer?
Yes, the cost to the consumer.
In that dvnation page Mel linked to had 4GB flash for $399, which Apple uses in the $199 nano.
In that dvnation page Mel linked to had 4GB flash for $399, which Apple uses in the $199 nano.
Are you sure it is the same device, or are you comparing two dissimilar devices with dissimilar function that happen to have the same capacity? The nano's flash module is just a couple of flash chips on a board, without a drive controller.
Are you sure it is the same device, or are you comparing two dissimilar devices with dissimilar function that happen to have the same capacity
You are probably right. But how much more can controllers and connectors add to the price when the flash chips are primary point of the device?
To sell the $199 nano and make a healthy profit Apple has to be buying its flash chips for a fraction of that price.
iSuppli had that break down of the iPhone and reported that Apple could be making as much as 50% profit one reason being that 4/8 GB of flash should be so cheap for Apple at this point.