Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > iPhone, iPad & iPod > Forget the iPhone. Just give us a new widescreen video iPod.

Forget the iPhone. Just give us a new widescreen video iPod. (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2007, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by icruise View Post
Why would you prefer 16GB flash? It seems to me that the appeal of the full-sized iPods is being able to store all of your music. 16GB isn't that big of a step up from 8GB.
I find the nano a bit limited feature-wise (but I do think it's a great design for what it does). I prefer the full iPod functionality. If I had to compromise, I'd take a thin 16 GB iPod over a fat 80 GB one.

My ideal iPod though is a 64 GB flash based one. Unfortunately, that would be insanely expensive. Even 32 GB would likely cost too much in 2007, although I haven't given up hope yet for one. OTOH, if we don't get it in 2007, I'd definitely expect to see a 32 GB flash based iPod in 2008.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2007, 01:53 AM
 
I need at least 30 GB for my music and a few movies. If 32 GB flash is too expensive I sure hope they'll stick with HDD based iPods. The iPod is just "iPod" because all your stuff fits on it. The "nano" is the thing where you have to chose what goes on and what doesn't. IMHO choosing the nano design over sufficient capacity is putting form before function. And if they keep wireless and other gimmicks outa there a 30 GB iPod can come in a fairly thin package.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2007, 10:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
IMHO choosing the nano design over sufficient capacity is putting form before function.
Well, form is function.

While I liked my 30 GB iPod, I carried it a lot less than my iPod mini. I don't own a nano but similarly I'd likely carry it way more than a standard iPod.

Luckily I had both the iPod and the iPod mini, but if I had to choose I'd choose a smaller one over a bigger one, even if it meant sacrificing storage size... up to a point. For me that point is about 16-20 GB, but I would much prefer a 30-64 GB unit. YMMV.
     
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2007, 12:41 PM
 
The current video iPod is yesterdays gadget. The screen is too small and touch screen is taking over. However, for music alone, the iPod Nano, 8 GB - the one I have - is excellent. I wouldn't want to carry a big video iPod to go to the gym, or going for a run, or walking to the grocery store...

Apple should keep the click wheel, up the Nano to 16 GB, and convert the video iPod into a full screen, multi touch device. Lets face it, the video iPod is for people who want to have their entire music collection on one device (Restaurant owners, musicians, people at home with it connected to their stereos...). It isn't the all around, kick around device like the Nano. The click wheel will preserve the ability to operate it with one hand, while a full screen video iPod allows users to not only enjoy music, but video entertainment too.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2007, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Well, form is function.
Baloney. Different form for different function.

You don't honestly believe Apple's gonna replace an 80 GB iPod video with a 16 GB nano (video), do you?
     
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2007, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Baloney. Different form for different function.

You don't honestly believe Apple's gonna replace an 80GB iPod video with a 16GB nano (video), do you?
I certainly hope not, but they didn't skip a beat when they replaced an 8GB mini with a 4GB nano.

Sure, they had to make the jump to flash storage at some point. But they didn't even opt to offer a thicker nano with an 8GB drive, much how the 80GB iPod is marginally thicker than the 30GB.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2007, 03:07 AM
 
Although I was surprised by the move at the time too, I can understand their reasoning. They probably argued that people who really need a lot of storage could go for the regular iPod. They wagered that those interested in a nano and hence in smallest possible size (at an affordable price) would probably take a reduced capacity into account.

But here we're talking about the regular iPod. The real thing. With video and the maximum capacity. And let's not forget, also the most expensive iPod. If Apple makes a 16 GB flash iPod the top of the line, there will be nothing else to upgrade to. No upsell possible. Even a 32 GB flash iPod is not going to be a suitable device for people who already now have a partially filled up 80 GB iPod video. Advertising such a device as so much thinner and lighter and more robust and yada yada isn't going to change the simple fact that its storage just isn't big enough.

I don't doubt for a moment that flash based iPods will eventually take over. But if we're discussing here if the flash iPod will come with 16 GB or is there just might even be a very expensive 32 GB model, it's perfectly clear that flash isn't ready to take over the entire line yet. It's simply not there yet in terms of $/GB.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2007, 08:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Baloney. Different form for different function.
Of course form is function, when you're talking about a portable device.

I suspect you wouldn't buy an iPod if it was twice as large. Furthermore, I wouldn't buy an iPod again if it had that 3G touch interface.

     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2007, 11:57 AM
 
You entirely missed the point. For those that want a small enclosure and are ready to sacrifice capacity to get that there's the nano. For those that need capacity and are ready to take some size and weight into account there's the video iPod. Different form according to different function.

Your suggestion would mean Apple forces everyone into the former group. Apple's smart enough to know better. A 16 (or even 32) GB flash iPod is not going to replace the 80 GB video iPod.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2007, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
You entirely missed the point. For those that want a small enclosure and are ready to sacrifice capacity to get that there's the nano. For those that need capacity and are ready to take some size and weight into account there's the video iPod. Different form according to different function.

Your suggestion would mean Apple forces everyone into the former group. Apple's smart enough to know better. A 16 (or even 32) GB flash iPod is not going to replace the 80 GB video iPod.
So, in other words, you agree that form is function, which was my original statement.

While I agree that some people would be annoyed if Apple replaced the 80 GB iPod with a 32 GB thin flash-based one, I hope they do it. I don't expect them to, but I think that would be an awesome upgrade over the previous design (which is far too bulky). The annoyed ones would just have to wait until later when the 64 GB model came out. Or they could buy an 80 GB model on closeout for cheap.

Now, 16 GB would be more problematic for the max size, but like I said, I'm rather own one of those (if the form was significantly better) than a 40 GB iPod.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2007, 01:16 PM
 
Replacing the 80GB iPod with a 32GB flash-based model would, in my opinion, be moronic. That's not to say that some people (e.g. Eug) wouldn't prefer it, but the vast majority of people, myself included, would see it as a downgrade. It's not like the current 30GB iPods are huge and thick or anything, so if you want a slimmer player with around 30GB of storage, there's your solution. The advantage of going with with flash would not be apparent to most people, but they would see that they had less than half of the space of the previous iPod.
( Last edited by icruise; Aug 27, 2007 at 01:24 PM. )
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2007, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by icruise View Post
Replacing the 80GB iPod with a 32GB flash-based model would, in my opinion, be moronic. That's not to say that some people (e.g. Eug) wouldn't prefer it, but the vast majority of people, myself included, would see it as a downgrade. It's not like the current 30GB iPods are huge and thick or anything, so if you want a slimmer player with around 30GB of storage, there's your solution. The advantage of going with with flash would not be apparent to most people, but they would see that they had less than half of the space of the previous iPod.
Interestingly, the same argument was made about the mini. "The mini is so small already! Why would they bother going to flash, for less storage?"

We know what happened there.

I agree though, 80 GB --> 32 GB is too much of a jump. 80 GB --> 64 GB would make perfect sense to me though.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2007, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Interestingly, the same argument was made about the mini. "The mini is so small already! Why would they bother going to flash, for less storage?"
Flawed argument as I already pointed out. At that time there was a large capacity iPod available as an alternative for those who need capacity even if it means getting a larger/heavier device.

If you remove the 80 GB video iPod and replace it with a 16 GB flash iPod there would be no such alternative. You would actually reduce choice and force people into a downgrade. At the same time you would reduce revenue. From a business and marketing POV that is absolutely moronic. I'm surprised you fail to understand that. Fortunately Apple does.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2007, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Flawed argument as I already pointed out. At that time there was a large capacity iPod available as an alternative for those who need capacity even if it means getting a larger/heavier device.

If you remove the 80 GB video iPod and replace it with a 16 GB flash iPod there would be no such alternative. You would actually reduce choice and force people into a downgrade. At the same time you would reduce revenue. From a business and marketing POV that is absolutely moronic. I'm surprised you fail to understand that. Fortunately Apple does.
Actually, my recommendation would be to downgrade from 80 GB to 64 GB (once the cost is acceptable) not 80 to 16. 80 to 32 would not be recommended (even though I'd really love it if they did). 80 to 16 max would be a very bad idea in general, but for me a 16 GB flash iPod would be nice.

Plus they could always just keep the 80 Gigger around for those who need the extra space. They done that many times with Macs - keep old Macs around for legacy types.

Or they could just not release any new iPod at all, and just wait until flash prices drop next year.

P.S. I'd guess that sales of the 80 GB iPod are comparatively low, considering the size, bulk, and the fact that most people have little use for 80 GB anyway.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2007, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
While I agree that some people would be annoyed if Apple replaced the 80 GB iPod with a 32 GB thin flash-based one, I hope they do it. I don't expect them to, but I think that would be an awesome upgrade over the previous design (which is far too bulky).
The current iPod is a bit bulky in terms of width and height, but I don't really see the thickness as a problem. It's pretty thin for its size. The 30GB is actually slightly thinner than the iPhone.

So it's feasible that they can still include a hard drive, with a front face that wraps around a screen similar in size to the iPhone's and a small home button, and still end up being a smaller form factor (smaller width/height, same thickness) as the current iPod.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Worthing, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2007, 04:49 PM
 
I'd hardly say that most people would have no use for an 80GB iPod. I've just spent the past few weeks culling my music collection down from 130GB to 80GB specifically to fit onto the 80GB iPod I'm about to buy. That's just my music collection, consider if you will that the iPod is now intended to play video also - I have another 460GB worth of video files. Granted that could be converted down to iPod-size to conserve space, but that would mean I'd have duplicates. Not ideal for a device I would consider suited to, and highly touted as able for, carrying one's entire collection.

I highly doubt I'm the only person with a collection larger than 80GB. Hence the great sales in NAS/External drives at the moment.

Downgrading in terms of disk capacity is absurd. It simply will not happen. Ever. Period. Can you image the next gen iMac being shipped with an 80GB hard-drive in order to shave half an inch off of its profile?

Hardware grows in size to accommodate the latest technology, until the technology is then made smaller and thence the device made smaller also. Sometimes companies are even able to increase specs and reduce size at once, but rarely, if ever, do they lower the spec of a device to make it smaller in form. This is true throughout all handheld electronic devices from mobile phones to cameras to flash memory pen drives.

This is the first time I have owned a mobile phone that is actually larger than the very first mobile phone I owned over 7 years ago, but given what it's capable of I accept the larger size as a neccessity.
WhiteBook 2GHz Core 2 Duo, 3GB RAM, 250GB WD Scorpio HD
Wireless Mighty Mouse, Logitech S530 Wireless Keyboard & Mouse, Hyundia 22" LCD
80GB Apple HD in Omata USB Caddy, 500GB FreeCom NAS formatted as HFS+ so no longer NAS
M-Audio Ozonic keyboard, M-Audio Solaris microphone, M-Audio BX5a speakers, Logic Studio
     
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2007, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
The click wheel will preserve the ability to operate it with one hand, while a full screen video iPod allows users to not only enjoy music, but video entertainment too.
I think Apple can go one step further and include the iPod remote with any future full-screen iPod, so you don't need to "wake" the device just to skip a few tracks. It's not quite operating the device with one hand, but it'd fulfill the purpose for which most people use the iPod without looking at it.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2007, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpencerLavery View Post
Downgrading in terms of disk capacity is absurd. It simply will not happen. Ever. Period. Can you image the next gen iMac being shipped with an 80GB hard-drive in order to shave half an inch off of its profile?
Can you imagine the next gen iMac going to a slower optical drive with less features in order to make a nice slim design? Oh wait, they already did that with the iMac. And that's not even a portable device. It's a desktop for goodness' sake.

Can you imagine Apple foregoing dual-layer support in its Pro laptops just to shave a few mm off the design? Oh wait, they already did that with the PowerBook.

Going from a 500 GB iMac to a 160 GB iMac would be a severe problem, because the iMac uses desktop 3.5 drives. Going to a laptop drive in a desktop would annoy a lot of people, just for size. Oh wait... Apple already did this with the Mac mini. The Mac mini's size is nice, but I think many if not most people would have preferred it if it were just a little bigger, but with a desktop hard drive... cuz it's a desktop after all.

Choice is good, and it'd be good if Apple maintained an 80 GB option. However, these days, hard drive based portable music players are an anachronism. They're big and bulky, they suck a lot of power, and they more fragile. iPods are portable devices, and where portable devices are concerned, form is a major aspect of its function. YMMV.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2007, 02:55 AM
 
The problem is you're confusing your own personal preference with Apple's business decisions. Although you might prefer smallest form factor over decent capacity, many other people don't. Currently Apple's lineup reflects that by offering different types of iPods for different purposes. Your urge to migrate the iPod line into the iPod nano series might work for you, but as displayed by several other posts here it doesn't work for a lot of people. It makes zero business sense for Apple to lose sales and revenue by forcing these people to downgrade.

I have no problem with your preference but if we're discussing what Apple will do with the iPod line in the near future, that becomes fairly irrelevant. Sep 5 isn't far away and I'm absolutely certain Apple will not replace the entire HDD-based iPod video line with 16 or 32 GB flash nanos. It will be another while before flash is ready to take over the entire iPod family.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Worthing, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2007, 04:44 AM
 
You only have to look at Apple's iPhone to see their Size versus Technology standpoint. It couldn't be clearer.
WhiteBook 2GHz Core 2 Duo, 3GB RAM, 250GB WD Scorpio HD
Wireless Mighty Mouse, Logitech S530 Wireless Keyboard & Mouse, Hyundia 22" LCD
80GB Apple HD in Omata USB Caddy, 500GB FreeCom NAS formatted as HFS+ so no longer NAS
M-Audio Ozonic keyboard, M-Audio Solaris microphone, M-Audio BX5a speakers, Logic Studio
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2007, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
The problem is you're confusing your own personal preference with Apple's business decisions. Although you might prefer smallest form factor over decent capacity, many other people don't.
No, the problem is you're making incorrect assumptions based off improper reads of my posts.

I have already said several times that I don't think Apple will turn the 80 GB into a 32 GB flash iPod, and I've also said that would annoy a large number of iPod customers. However, despite this I've also said I hope that you guys get pissed off, because that's what I want. Not the pissed off part, but my 32 GB flash iPod.

ie. I'm fully aware this is my own preference and likely not Apple's. I don't need you to point this out to me, especially when I've already done so myself in this very thread.

OTOH, I do think Apple would jump at the chance to downgrade an 80 GB iPod to 64 GB, if it flash prices allowed it.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Palo Alto, CA USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2007, 12:17 PM
 
It depends on sales. If they released a 100 GB iPod video and a 16GB thin Widescreen iPod, and priced them the same ($399), which one would you get? Of course, it depends on your needs, do you want the widescreen or alot of storage space?
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2007, 01:07 PM
 
I agree that it's very unlikely Apple would eliminate the high capacity [HDD] iPod. But I also agree they will very, very likely introduce a flash-based iPod -- not as a replacement, but as a new, fourth category. And I predict, contrary to the mock-ups we've seen, that the new Nano will not be so chunky - probably the same width as the current Nano, but shorter.

The new flash-based iPod will probably be more expensive than the HDD iPod, since it would marketed as a full-screen Video iPod with a full-featured PDA, and they won't want to cannibalize the iPhone. Hopefully, we'll all find out in 8 days!

     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2007, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by anthology123 View Post
It depends on sales. If they released a 100 GB iPod video and a 16GB thin Widescreen iPod, and priced them the same ($399), which one would you get? Of course, it depends on your needs, do you want the widescreen or alot of storage space?
If I had to choose between the two, this would be a no-brainer for me: The 16. YMMV.

But I do consider 16 somewhat anemic. 32 GB would be much better for me.

And to think... My first hard drive was 25 MB or something horrendously small like that.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2007, 03:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by anthology123 View Post
It depends on sales. If they released a 100 GB iPod video and a 16GB thin Widescreen iPod, and priced them the same ($399), which one would you get? Of course, it depends on your needs, do you want the widescreen or alot of storage space?
If the 100 GB were the size of the current 30 GB iPod and the nano were the same size as now I'd always go for the regular iPod. IMHO 16 GB is a joke. I can't even put all my music on it and that's before I add a single movie.

I'm also wondering if and when the nano will gain video capability. If it stays the same size it is now chances are it won't get it soon. The video circuitry needs a lot of power and I'm not so sure the nano's battery is up to it. Even if Apple would release a 64 GB iPod nano, without the video capability it would be pretty much useless as a replacement for the regular iPod.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2007, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by anthology123 View Post
It depends on sales. If they released a 100 GB iPod video and a 16GB thin Widescreen iPod, and priced them the same ($399), which one would you get? Of course, it depends on your needs, do you want the widescreen or alot of storage space?
I guess we'll know where all of this is heading on September 5!

Your suggestion, anthology, is the most plausible direction that I could see Apple taking. And truth be told, if the 16GB Widescreen iPod had the same multi-touch OSX as the iPhone under the hood (and why wouldn't it?) then I would definitely consider it over the iPhone.

It all depends on one thing for me though: Wi-Fi. If it didn't have Wi-Fi, and was sold at $399 as you suggest, then forget it. That's the price of a refurbished iPhone. Even accounting for the extra storage, the ability to quickly go online and check basic info is priceless to me.

Especially considering how well the iPhone custom app development is going, and how WiFi makes it even easier to load apps onto it (via Installer.app), it's something that would definitely make a potential wide touch-screen iPod even more worth buying.
( Last edited by Visnaut; Aug 28, 2007 at 07:58 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2007, 09:42 PM
 
160GB iPod Touch, Baby! (I hope)

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2007, 09:43 PM
 
Yup. If it gets an iPhone like OS and apps, it really needs WiFi. And if gets that, then I can take the size, esp. if it's widescreen. If it's "just" another iPod, it could do with a physical size reduction IMO (while hopefully maintaining the screen size). Too bad it's limited by the hard drive's bulkiness.

Don't forget this though:
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Note that they are not widescreen.

The invite is closer to widescreen, but it likely doesn't actually represent the screen dimensions.

     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2007, 03:05 AM
 
More mock-ups...





The former seems to be some kind of new (and possibly more compact) nano. The latter would be the touchscreen iPod video with a wide screen.

My personal preference would be something like the latter with a >30 GB HDD - especially if keeping wireless out means more battery time, 'regular' iPod OS, and smaller disk footprint. I actually doubt though that Apple would release such an iPod. I'm pretty sure they would consider it too much of a 'distraction' from the iPhone.
( Last edited by Simon; Aug 29, 2007 at 03:12 AM. )
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: missing
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2007, 04:21 AM
 
The fact is, I will only upgrade my iPod if:

1. OS X
2. Multitouch
3. Wifi
4. Safari and Mail +
5. 40 GB or larger capacity

Basically a HDD iPhone with no phone capabilities. I'm willing to pay up to $400 for the 40 GB version. It would be huge if iChat/Skype capabilities were included.

Do I think Apple will do it? No
Do I think Apple can do it? Yes, easily.

A pity, really

I rather keep my simple wheel-click iPod that just works, than a multitouch iPod which does exactly the same that the old generation, just in a bit more complicated format.

No, I'm not in the market for a iPhone.

But I want a real iPod video-PDA-wifi so badly...
-original iMac, TiPB 400, Cube, Macbook (black), iMac 24¨, plus the original iPod and a black nano 4GB-
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Garland, TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2007, 08:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by cenutrio View Post
The fact is, I will only upgrade my iPod if:

1. OS X
2. Multitouch
3. Wifi
4. Safari and Mail +
5. 40 GB or larger capacity

Basically a HDD iPhone with no phone capabilities. I'm willing to pay up to $400 for the 40 GB version. It would be huge if iChat/Skype capabilities were included.

Do I think Apple will do it? No
Do I think Apple can do it? Yes, easily.

A pity, really

I rather keep my simple wheel-click iPod that just works, than a multitouch iPod which does exactly the same that the old generation, just in a bit more complicated format.

No, I'm not in the market for a iPhone.

But I want a real iPod video-PDA-wifi so badly...
In my opinion, if Apple releases an "iPod touch", here's the only huge question: will you get the virtually scratch-proof "lens quality" glass of the iPhone? On my 30GB video iPod, I have one of those plastic cases that adds little bulk but completely protects everything but the click wheel. You can't do that on a touch iPod. The screen has to be accessible. If Apple doesn't use the same glass on an iPod as it does on my iPhone -- it really doesn't scratch -- if you want a widescreen, touch-interface iPod, you're better off with an iPhone for that glass screen alone.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: missing
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2007, 08:37 AM
 
well, why change it?

Use same components that the iPhone, just replace the memory modules for a 1.8" HDD, and remove the phone components.

My point is based on my last weekend experience. I was for a week in Austria in a sport competition, I didn't bring my laptop because all my work is there and i was afraid of thieves. I brought my iPod nano though. The sport club had a wifi network and because poor weather conditions we expent lost of time in the club where there was a computer to be used by 125 participants....

If i had such a IPod "PDA" to check email, watch some youtube videos or weherever, SMS, and surf the web a bit, I would have been the luckiest guy on earth.

I think there is a market for such product and it is not an issue for Apple to produce it, they already have everything they need. The problem is, do Jobs and company want to market it?

Sadly, i think they won't.
-original iMac, TiPB 400, Cube, Macbook (black), iMac 24¨, plus the original iPod and a black nano 4GB-
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Garland, TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2007, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by cenutrio View Post
well, why change it?

Use same components that the iPhone, just replace the memory modules for a 1.8" HDD, and remove the phone components.

My point is based on my last weekend experience. I was for a week in Austria in a sport competition, I didn't bring my laptop because all my work is there and i was afraid of thieves. I brought my iPod nano though. The sport club had a wifi network and because poor weather conditions we expent lost of time in the club where there was a computer to be used by 125 participants....

If i had such a IPod "PDA" to check email, watch some youtube videos or weherever, SMS, and surf the web a bit, I would have been the luckiest guy on earth.

I think there is a market for such product and it is not an issue for Apple to produce it, they already have everything they need. The problem is, do Jobs and company want to market it?

Sadly, i think they won't.
Agreed. I think they already have one. They call it the iPhone. For people who want these features, because of the enhanced revenue of the iPhone, they're going to want to push you to iPhone for these features. It's worth it; it's the only really usable PDA I've ever owned, and I've tried many hoping one would finally click, but never before. But some people don't want the phone or phone contract. Frankly, I don't want the phone or phone contract. The EDGE service, yes, but I'm not big on mobile phones for voice. I'm not big on phones, period. Still, I think Apple will position the phone and contract as the cost of getting the other features you want.

Frankly, I'm going to be surprised if they release a touch-interface iPod of any kind. I think you might see OS X-based, wide-screen, refined visual interface and cover flow -- all still using the click wheel. I think eventually they'll make a touch iPod, but it's too soon. The problem being you still have people waiting out just a few more months on existing service contracts on other carriers who *will* buy an iPhone when their contracts expire. You don't want to give them an option to get all the features of the iPhone, plus more storage, without the price and continuing revenue model of the iPhone.

I do think there's a point where large capacity click wheel iPods and iPhones complement one another. If I didn't have a current generation full-size video iPod, I'd probably buy one of the new ones even though I have an iPhone, too. But the 5G video iPod does enough of what I want external to the iPhone that I won't want to upgrade since I do have the iPhone, too.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: missing
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2007, 09:35 AM
 
I think we mostly agree.

But what a pity, Apple has the hardware and software to get such a product right away, but it is not of "their" interest. Not very audacious Apple, really.

They could go after the mp3 market (ipod line), cellular/PDA (iPhone) and a new device in between wifi iPod, which is what i just need. I'll have to stick with my laptop...

Anyhow, I will stick to my old but reliable iPods video and nano), the new upgrade does not seem to suit or improve that much or, at all, my needs
-original iMac, TiPB 400, Cube, Macbook (black), iMac 24¨, plus the original iPod and a black nano 4GB-
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Garland, TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2007, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by cenutrio View Post
I think we mostly agree.

But what a pity, Apple has the hardware and software to get such a product right away, but it is not of "their" interest. Not very audacious Apple, really.

They could go after the mp3 market (ipod line), cellular/PDA (iPhone) and a new device in between wifi iPod, which is what i just need. I'll have to stick with my laptop...

Anyhow, I will stick to my old but reliable iPods video and nano), the new upgrade does not seem to suit or improve that much or, at all, my needs
Usually when Apple hits something new, I'm either all over it or not. But I struggled with this one for over a month. My decision was based on the fact I just don't think they'll release a full-size iPod with iPhone feature set and interface minus EDGE and phone capability -- even if they do, I'm still better sold on the click wheel and largely text-based interface of the video iPod for large media collections; for me, touch works nicely for more limited subsets that will fit in somewhat less than 8GB -- rather than tying me more to my laptop and the Web and Internet technology, I feel like the iPhone has to a great degree freed me up, and since I have small children I feel I must have some sort of mobile phone for convenience and emergencies however little I may actually use it, anywhere EDGE service was attractive, and although I was no longer in a contract with my former carrier, I had no intention of flat canceling the service within two years, probably ever, and the ATT plan was right about the same cost as my former voice plan, which had no data.

The killer is that the device itself is $600 -- well, $500 but when you're spending that much, I decided the $100 for double the storage was worth it. Still, supposing they *do* deliver what a lot of people want, essentially an iPhone with no cell phone radio, I can't imagine that the lower capacity model will go for less than $400 in its first generation. It would be a substantial upgrade for which I think they could command that price. Apple has reduced iPod prices but they've never seemed concerned about being closely price competitive with the plethora of also-ran media players out there, not on substantially revised new models. Face it: if you want an "iPod touch" you're not going to go buy a Zune instead, just to save money. So I estimate I paid a $200 premium for iPhone, about what you'd pay for a really good mobile phone, not necessarily even a smart-phone, even with carrier subsidies, but a phone without iPhone's capabilities.

I believe in consumer choice, without a doubt. (Like I think movie studios should support both HD DVD and Blu-ray until consumers have made a clear choice and you can no longer sell one or the other format to the public.) And I think Apple could provide better choice, but they didn't and I decided to except the inherent trade-offs. Purely my decision, though, and I concede I accepted some terms and conditions that aren't just stunningly consumer friendly -- although I've had quite good customer service from ATT.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2007, 12:03 PM
 
My experience with iPods is a bit different than most other people here. I wasn't tempted to go out and buy one for myself and outside of picking up a 4G iPod for my wife-which I never touched after I set it up for her-I didn't really have any desire for one. My Powerbook is always with me and it can serve all my video and music needs. (Along with the run-of-the mill things such as Internet, text editing, etc...)

The iPhone looked interesting but I didn't buy one until a customer of mine bought four of them for his family and wanted me to support them. I found that I hardly use the "phone" part of my iPhone but I do use it for websurfing, occasional emails, directions to people's houses and probably most important to this discussion I use it for video. I record a lot of stuff off cable using an EyeTV 200 and in the past I would just burn it onto DVDs for later viewing. The iPhone has chnaged that for me. I now use iSquint to convert the video files and import then import them into my iPhone. I can watch movies when and where I like.

The downside, of course is that my phone only holds a puny 8 GB of data. Currently it holds a smidgen of music-about 1 GB-five episodes of Enterprise, an ESurance commercial and the movie Stalag 17. That leaves me with roughly 824 MB worth of space left. I'd love to have a similar device which would hold 16-30 GB worth of stuff so I could put more music and a few more movies on it.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Palo Alto, CA USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2007, 12:05 PM
 
Tough points brought up here. Apple must have a plan, and #1 on that is: don't hurt the iPhone sales. So how do you release an iPod that appeals to that niche, but not cut into the iPhone? I doubt you can just remove the cell phone guts, the flash ram and just drop a 100GB 1.8" drive into the iphone form factor and get the same battery life. If the battery life shows up less, people will cry wolf.
If Apple could make one and sell it at the right price, they would dump the hard drives in a heartbeat, but they will always be ahead of the curve to flash drives. A longshot might be a fall in flash drive pricing caused by Apples big demand for iPod memory, or new laptops that use flash, cell phones suddenly needing a big demand, etc.
The fact that Apple puts the largest 1.8" drives in a video iPod show the demand for it. Apple never puts the max amount of anything in any of their products, this is one of the few that they do, so that says alot.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2007, 03:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by anthology123 View Post
Tough points brought up here. Apple must have a plan, and #1 on that is: don't hurt the iPhone sales. So how do you release an iPod that appeals to that niche, but not cut into the iPhone? I doubt you can just remove the cell phone guts, the flash ram and just drop a 100GB 1.8" drive into the iphone form factor and get the same battery life. If the battery life shows up less, people will cry wolf.
Let's just assume battery life would still be good. How much would Apple have to charge for such an iPod for it not to cut into iPhone sales? And would people be willing to pay that much? The current 80 GB video iPod is $150 less than the cheapest iPhone.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: missing
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2007, 03:58 AM
 
Since phone components are not needed, I assume that this space could be used to increase battery size.

Price? I would pay $400 for a 80 GB version, it would be a deal.

They won't make it though, that is the problem.
-original iMac, TiPB 400, Cube, Macbook (black), iMac 24¨, plus the original iPod and a black nano 4GB-
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: missing
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2007, 04:01 AM
 
The Iphone is not solution....


I don't want anything to do with ATT, I want a iPod-video-pda-wifi from Apple just that.

The major iPhone drawback is ATT, everybody agrees on this.

The fact that is only 8 GB is a problem to me, I need at least 40 GB, HDD is the way to solve that.

6 h battery would do.
-original iMac, TiPB 400, Cube, Macbook (black), iMac 24¨, plus the original iPod and a black nano 4GB-
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2007, 08:17 PM
 
Some people might also be reluctant to carry a $600 device around all time and really would like something for mostly home use.

-
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2007, 03:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by cenutrio View Post
Price? I would pay $400 for a 80 GB version, it would be a deal.
They won't make it though, that is the problem.
I think your example demonstrates very nicely why they wouldn't do it.

You say you'd be willing to buy a new 80 GB iPod for $400 if it came with the additional features. But that is just $100 less than the iPhone. Even now the cheapest iPhone is $150 more than the most expensive iPod video. $100 would buy you a ton of extra space, no AT&T lock-in, and at the same time all you lose is the GSM capability. To me (and I'm guessing also to Apple) that sounds like a lot of downsell from potential iPhone buyers.

To prevent such downsell, they could price such an iPod at lets say $600. But then, who wants to pay $600 for an 80 GB iPod when you can get an 80 GB iPod video for $349 now?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: missing
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2007, 03:57 AM
 
I agree on the "they wouldn't do it" comment

Let's rephrase it, I would be willing to pay $500 for a 80 GB iPod with all the mentioned capabilities.

The fact that it would use a HDD will make it cheaper that the 8 GB memory modules in the iPhone.

It would produce more money/unit sold to Apple than the iPhone. Still, they won't make it.

The iPod video is not in the same range of product, this device has been out for well over a year. It is old stuff, it is just an iPod and I already have a couple of those.

If Apple wants my money, again, they need to upgrade. An iPod with the iPhone capabilities but the phone, with HDD would sell me. Just that.

My point is that Apple owns the iPod business, it is making gains in the phone industry, etc. Thus, they are becoming increasingly conservative.

This iPod I've been describing would sell like nothing before, no matter the price.
-original iMac, TiPB 400, Cube, Macbook (black), iMac 24¨, plus the original iPod and a black nano 4GB-
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Garland, TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2007, 05:30 AM
 
6 hour battery wouldn't compete. ATT is perceived to be the problem but for the iPhone demographic is no worse than any other carrier. I was afraid to switch, ATT has been fine, their EDGE data service is cheaper than my old carrier, they have comparable features. Sprint, now Sprint would be a problem.

I agree with Eug, I'd rather have more battery life and smaller because iTunes is so good at managing my -- at least 1,000 albums, 700 of which are on my Mac. I chose the 30GB video iPod because it was a lot thinner. Having both a video iPod and an 8Gb iPhone I won't be in the market, network features or no, for a new iPod -- wife may get a video nano if that is real -- because it would be redundant, but I'll faint if the new iPod has the network features minus GSM.

Originally Posted by cenutrio View Post
The Iphone is not solution....


I don't want anything to do with ATT, I want a iPod-video-pda-wifi from Apple just that.

The major iPhone drawback is ATT, everybody agrees on this.

The fact that is only 8 GB is a problem to me, I need at least 40 GB, HDD is the way to solve that.

6 h battery would do.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2007, 08:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
I think your example demonstrates very nicely why they wouldn't do it.

You say you'd be willing to buy a new 80 GB iPod for $400 if it came with the additional features. But that is just $100 less than the iPhone. Even now the cheapest iPhone is $150 more than the most expensive iPod video. $100 would buy you a ton of extra space, no AT&T lock-in, and at the same time all you lose is the GSM capability. To me (and I'm guessing also to Apple) that sounds like a lot of downsell from potential iPhone buyers.

To prevent such downsell, they could price such an iPod at lets say $600. But then, who wants to pay $600 for an 80 GB iPod when you can get an 80 GB iPod video for $349 now?
It's even worse that that: since apple also gets kick-backs from ATT, thus make even more on the iPhone. Thus they will make much less money on ipods than iphones.

There is, however, the issue of volume. Apple can sell *far* more widescreen ipod videos, especially if they get the product right (which to me means including WiFi). Does Apple really want to miss out on that huge market (if they bring in a device which clearly looks lame compared to iPhone) just so they can sell a few more iPhones?

One possibility would be to have a "normal" video ipod (no WiFi, $350), and a "best" model (with WiFi + bigger disk, $500).

My view is that enough people really do want the iPhone, that a real WiFi ipod video wouldn't actually eat into the sales too much, and the benefit in terms of sales volume would out-weigh it (and Apple really wants to keep that market share more than anything in the world). Surely you don't pay that much, and lock yourself into a contract for 2 yrs unless you *really* want phone functionality.

Furthermore, as has been suggested, the most compelling reason to put OS X on an ipod is to support networking and internet, as well as serious mail and web applications (though I could imagine Apple leaving Mail out of the equation for a while ... there's always web-mail). You just don't need OS X if you're only doing media playback and navigation.

The current ipod video is looking pretty dated, and I just don't think Apple can afford to have a disappointing replacement (i.e. nothing more than a wide-touch-screen). It certainly wouldn't make me upgrade my 60GB ipod video.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Garland, TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2007, 09:12 AM
 
Mark my words: No Wi-Fi. One caveat, if they introduce a method to purchase from the iTunes Store for the iPhone -- about which I'm not too sure, unless they limit it to music because a 1.5GB movie download is battery-intensive, probably take quite a while, depending on where you're connected, and would completely drain the battery on EDGE -- then they might put Wi-Fi in the new iPod so it could do the same iTunes Store purchases. But only that. No e-mail, no Safari, no YouTube, no maps, no widgets. Jobs will say something about having the go-anywhere communications device line with a full-featured iPod included, the wirelessly distributing Airport Express and Apple TV systems, and the portable media player line which syncs via USB with your computer, and therefore Wi-Fi doesn't belong in it because it's of no use.

Period.

What you better hope for instead of Wi-Fi, if the new full-size iPod does indeed get the touch interface, you better hope for that anti-scratch coated lens glass screen. Because the standard plastic iPod screen will be a mess in no time. They tried it on the iPhone and it *was* a mess, so they switched. But it's conceivable they'll try and keep it for the iPod line, figuring it'll save production cost and a case between you and the screen is less of a hassle if you're not e-mailing, web surfing and dialing a phone.

Originally Posted by TiDual View Post
It's even worse that that: since apple also gets kick-backs from ATT, thus make even more on the iPhone. Thus they will make much less money on ipods than iphones.

There is, however, the issue of volume. Apple can sell *far* more widescreen ipod videos, especially if they get the product right (which to me means including WiFi). Does Apple really want to miss out on that huge market (if they bring in a device which clearly looks lame compared to iPhone) just so they can sell a few more iPhones?

One possibility would be to have a "normal" video ipod (no WiFi, $350), and a "best" model (with WiFi + bigger disk, $500).

My view is that enough people really do want the iPhone, that a real WiFi ipod video wouldn't actually eat into the sales too much, and the benefit in terms of sales volume would out-weigh it (and Apple really wants to keep that market share more than anything in the world). Surely you don't pay that much, and lock yourself into a contract for 2 yrs unless you *really* want phone functionality.

Furthermore, as has been suggested, the most compelling reason to put OS X on an ipod is to support networking and internet, as well as serious mail and web applications (though I could imagine Apple leaving Mail out of the equation for a while ... there's always web-mail). You just don't need OS X if you're only doing media playback and navigation.

The current ipod video is looking pretty dated, and I just don't think Apple can afford to have a disappointing replacement (i.e. nothing more than a wide-touch-screen). It certainly wouldn't make me upgrade my 60GB ipod video.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2007, 03:15 PM
 
Just got hands-on for the first time with the iPhone. A little late to the party, I know, but my 2 cents: the iPhone is sh*t-hot. Awesome. The touch screen was responsive, beautiful, crisp. Pages loaded ok on the Apple Store's wifi. Typing was easy (I don't have huge fingers). Call quality was much better than Sprint (my c. I must own this thing.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Garland, TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2007, 03:45 PM
 
Cold Warrior,

I got my hands on one day three -- if you can't the Friday evening launch. I even had some qualms about the no-subisdy contract, switching carriers, etc. Made a big fuss about missing features; had arguments about issues like that on this forum with early buyers who kept gushing about their iPhones.

I managed to hold out until last Sunday, so let's see how long you make it. I'll bet ten days, maybe two weeks. I'll skip the gushing so I won't contribute to trimming down your hold-out period. $600 is not cheap for a phone, not to most everyone.

p.s. Only in the mythical land of Apple could a month and a few days be considered late to the party.

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
Just got hands-on for the first time with the iPhone. A little late to the party, I know, but my 2 cents: the iPhone is sh*t-hot. Awesome. The touch screen was responsive, beautiful, crisp. Pages loaded ok on the Apple Store's wifi. Typing was easy (I don't have huge fingers). Call quality was much better than Sprint (my c. I must own this thing.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2007, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by sanford View Post
Cold Warrior,

I got my hands on one day three -- if you can't the Friday evening launch. I even had some qualms about the no-subisdy contract, switching carriers, etc. Made a big fuss about missing features; had arguments about issues like that on this forum with early buyers who kept gushing about their iPhones.

I managed to hold out until last Sunday, so let's see how long you make it. I'll bet ten days, maybe two weeks. I'll skip the gushing so I won't contribute to trimming down your hold-out period. $600 is not cheap for a phone, not to most everyone.

p.s. Only in the mythical land of Apple could a month and a few days be considered late to the party.
No kidding. The thought of owning and using one every day is eating my brain right now. Must. Hold. On.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 01:25 PM
 
Washington Post: WiFi touchscreen iPod and iPhone nano?

If documents prepared by an Apple partner and obtained by The Washington Post are to be believed, both of those products are in the works and slated for release in the coming months. One would be an iPod with WiFi and a touch screen like that on the iPhone; the other would be an iPhone Nano priced lower than the cheapest iPhone, which sells for $500.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:15 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2