[Eug]

Originally Posted by icruise 

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.

[Simon]

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]

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.

[freudling]

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.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

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?

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by Simon 

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.

[Simon]

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]

Originally Posted by Simon 

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.

[Simon]

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]

Originally Posted by Simon 

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.

[icruise]

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.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by icruise 

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.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

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]

Originally Posted by Simon 

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.

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by Eug 

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.

[SpencerLavery]

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.

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by freudling 

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]

Originally Posted by SpencerLavery 

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.

[Simon]

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.