[joelcpa]

Originally posted by chabig:
Keeping costs and prices down makes a lot of sense.

Maybe to you and me, but not to most of the people commenting here. Apparently, they were happier when they could pay $150 more for a 60gb iPod photo and get the $19 firewire cable free(?).

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

How much you think these cables really cost Apple? Perhaps $1 or $2?

[Mithras]

Originally posted by joelcpa:
Maybe to you and me, but not to most of the people commenting here. Apparently, they were happier when they could pay $150 more for a 60gb iPod photo and get the $19 firewire cable free(?).

I just think that Apple, of all companies, could suck it up and offer a Mac-oriented firewire version, and eat whatever bit of profit it would require to cater to the needs of the Macintosh market (!)

But in another sense this is entirely consistent with Apple's behavior, which is to treat owners of machines as little as 12 months old like garbage.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Mithras:
I just think that Apple, of all companies, could suck it up and offer a Mac-oriented firewire version, and eat whatever bit of profit it would require to cater to the needs of the Macintosh market (!)

But in another sense this is entirely consistent with Apple's behavior, which is to treat owners of machines as little as 12 months old like garbage.

You speak the truth.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by joelcpa:
Maybe to you and me, but not to most of the people commenting here. Apparently, they were happier when they could pay $150 more for a 60gb iPod photo and get the $19 firewire cable free(?).

Well, let's look at this.

Old 40 GB iPod: $399 and I get a FireWire cable and Dock.

New 30 GB iPod + FireWire cable + Dock: $349 + $19 + $39 = $407, and I only get 30 GB instead of 40 GB! Where's this price cut you speak of again?!

[broca]

to some mac users apple can do no wrong. all these while when apple's new product came out less than xpectation or priced too high they always have an excuse for their "beloved company". now with this firewire cable issue some even mentioned its good for enviroment.. geeze come on people, be objective and fair in your arguments. if this is a product from creative or dell, wonder what would those mac users say. i'm a mac user too but lately i feel that apple is really getting too profit oriented in trying to milk the max out of its popular products. and in the process they have somehow forsaken their loyal supporters during all those troubled times...
power corrupts. absolute power(ipod) corrupts absolutely. so steve you're looking more like bill as days go by. remember "animal farm" by george orwell?

[Busemann]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Well, let's look at this.

Old 40 GB iPod: $399 and I get a FireWire cable and Dock.

New 30 GB iPod + FireWire cable + Dock: $349 + $19 + $39 = $407, and I only get 30 GB instead of 40 GB! Where's this price cut you speak of again?!

You also get much better battery-life, smaller and lighter enclosure and a color screen...

I bet 40GB iPods are selling at a heavy discount right now, so if the additional 10GB is so important I'd buy one now.

[TailsToo]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Well, let's look at this.

Old 40 GB iPod: $399 and I get a FireWire cable and Dock.

New 30 GB iPod + FireWire cable + Dock: $349 + $19 + $39 = $407, and I only get 30 GB instead of 40 GB! Where's this price cut you speak of again?!

umm.. that price was for the Black and white older iPod. the 40GB Photo went for $499, so basically you are spending $93 LESS. Otherwise, you can get a 60GB model for $449 +$60 for the Firewire cable and dock. So for $10 more than the old 40GB model, you can get a 60GB with the extras.

[joelcpa]

Originally posted by CharlesS:

Old 40 GB iPod: $399 and I get a FireWire cable and Dock.

Sorry Charlie, but the old 40gb COLOR ipod went for $499.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your poor argument.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

In the past, the absence of a FireWire cable would be more than a minor inconvenience. With earlier iPod models and versions of iTunes, transfer via USB 2.0 was noticeably slower. Apple appears to have made improvements to bring USB 2.0 transfers into line with FireWire. In my tests, a dual-processor 2GHz Power Mac G5 filled a 6GB mini in 15 minutes and 17 seconds over USB 2.0. Using a FireWire connection shaved a scant 18 seconds off that time. And on a 3GHz Dell Dimension 4700 PC running Windows XP, USB 2.0 transfer was faster than FireWire�taking 17 minutes and 49 seconds to top off the mini versus the 20 minutes and 16 seconds it took to do the job via FireWire. (Yes, as these figures indicate, moving music to an iPod takes less time with a Mac.)


http://playlistmag.com/reviews/2005/...src=mcrss-0205

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Busemann:
You also get much better battery-life

Okay, you got me on this one. The Photo does have better battery life, although the regular iPod's battery is good enough that I haven't had it run out before I was able to charge it yet.

smaller and lighter enclosure

Huh? I'd understood that the iPod Photo has a larger enclosure.

and a completely useless color screen...

Fixed.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by TailsToo:
umm.. that price was for the Black and white older iPod. the 40GB Photo went for $499, so basically you are spending $93 LESS.

$93 less... than the 40 GB iPod Photo which no one wanted! That model hadn't been selling. The normal 40 GB model is no longer available, and thus this new 30 GB model is very much a replacement for it. And it is not as good a deal.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Oh ya, another downer is that most computers kill the power to the USB ports when sleeping. Firewire keeps on ticking.

[cmoney]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
$93 less... than the 40 GB iPod Photo which no one wanted! That model hadn't been selling. The normal 40 GB model is no longer available, and thus this new 30 GB model is very much a replacement for it. And it is not as good a deal.

It's a better deal for me. I spent $349 instead of $499 and got everything I needed. So the way I see it, I saved $150 by not being "forced" to buy bundled accessories I would not have used anyway.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Huh? I'd understood that the iPod Photo has a larger enclosure.

Then you're wrong.. The new 30GB iPod photo is almost as thin as the 20GB iPod.

As for the usefulness of the color screen, it's much more readable than the previous and I for one think it's great to see the cover-art while playing. On top of that you get the photo capabilities, so I'd say it's a very good value.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Busemann:
As for the usefulness of the color screen, it's much more readable than the previous...

Yep. It's got a higher resolution and a much nicer GUI. Even if you don't want/need color, you'll definitely prefer the new screen.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Busemann:
Then you're wrong.. The new 30GB iPod photo is almost as thin as the 20GB iPod.

Almost as thin means not as thin! I had understood that the 20 GB iPod and the B/W 40 GB iPod were the same size, and the iPod Photo models were larger. Or am I mistaken?

[Busemann]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Almost as thin means not as thin! I had understood that the 20 GB iPod and the B/W 40 GB iPod were the same size, and the iPod Photo models were larger. Or am I mistaken?

The 40GB were thicker than the 20GB, and also thicker than the 30GB iPod photo.

[Simon]

old 20GB: 0.57", 5.6 ounces
old 40 GB: 0.69", 6.2 ounces
old 40 GB photo: 0.75", 6.4 ounces
old 60 GB photo: 0.75", 6.4 ounces
new 30 GB photo: 0.63", 5.9 ounces
new 60 GB photo: 0.75", 6.4 ounces

[Busemann]

Originally posted by Simon:
old 40 GB: 0.62", 6.2 ounces

0.69" actually

[Simon]

Originally posted by Busemann:
0.69" actually

Right, my bad. Typo. Corrected.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Simon:
old 20GB: 0.57", 5.6 ounces
old 40 GB: 0.69", 6.2 ounces
old 40 GB photo: 0.75", 6.4 ounces
old 60 GB photo: 0.75", 6.4 ounces
new 30 GB photo: 0.63", 5.9 ounces
new 60 GB photo: 0.75", 6.4 ounces

Okay, I stand corrected.

I'd still rather have the extra 10 GB if I were going to spend that kind of money.

[TailsToo]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
$93 less... than the 40 GB iPod Photo which no one wanted! That model hadn't been selling. The normal 40 GB model is no longer available, and thus this new 30 GB model is very much a replacement for it. And it is not as good a deal.

I don't understand your logic. Apple lowered the entry price point by $150, and it's not as good a deal? Sure it's a 30GB vs a 40GB, but as you said before, no one wanted the 40. Maybe they will want a much cheaper 30, or a 60GB model for $50 less than the old 40GB.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by TailsToo:
I don't understand your logic. Apple lowered the entry price point by $150, and it's not as good a deal? Sure it's a 30GB vs a 40GB, but as you said before, no one wanted the 40. Maybe they will want a much cheaper 30, or a 60GB model for $50 less than the old 40GB.

The point is that there used to be a 40 GB model that was not an iPod Photo that was not much more than the new 30 GB model at all, especially when you factor in the price of the FireWire cable. Now that model is gone. The new 30 GB model is not much cheaper than that model, and it isn't as good if you don't need the photo stuff.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
The point is that there used to be a 40 GB model that was not an iPod Photo that was not much more than the new 30 GB model at all, especially when you factor in the price of the FireWire cable. Now that model is gone. The new 30 GB model is not much cheaper than that model, and it isn't as good if you don't need the photo stuff.

If you want the 40 GB, you can still buy it.

[joelcpa]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
If you want the 40 GB, you can still buy it.

Don't bother, Charlie has made up his mind already. Cluttering up his argument with the facts is futile.