[Sparkletron]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, if that argument held sway, there would be no market for music players with large capacity drives. Have to? No. Want to? Yes.

I hear ya. But 16GB is not exactly roughing it. That's--what?, a week's worth of music? Your battery will die long before the playlist does. And since you're away from home I suppose you're going to need one of those third-party chargers to re-up.

And what if you happen to have 200GB's worth of music instead of 160? D'oh?

-S

[peeb]

It's not about the play length, it's the range of choice that's limited. Sorry, I've just got used to 160, and yes, even that is not enough.

[pcryan5]

I've ordered one but while fully admitting I am ordering myself a new toy. My 80G will remain my travelPod.

[Visnaut]

You guys are a bunch a sticks in the mud.

So "most people" have a huge library of over 160gb eh? Well before today, how did you survive? What magical portable device were you using that held over 160gb, had a touch screen interface, and wasn't prohibitively expensive? Unless you're from the future, I doubt you have any current device that meets your needs, so why bother complaining about the iPod touch?

In fact, I would wager that most of you complaining already own iPods. If you're not used to paring down the content you carry around already, then when will you be?

Besides, portable storage will always trail in capacity compared standard storage media. The only reason you guys have huge libraries today is because there are laptop and desktop drives that can hold that much. So in a few years, when there's a 200gb iPod touch, you guys will be complaining it doesn't hold all of your HD movies, and your terabytes of content.

[Moonray]

Seems there’s a need for an external 500 GB HD storage with integrated WiFi.

-

[bearcatrp]

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

You guys are a bunch a sticks in the mud.

So "most people" have a huge library of over 160gb eh? Well before today, how did you survive? What magical portable device were you using that held over 160gb, had a touch screen interface, and wasn't prohibitively expensive? Unless you're from the future, I doubt you have any current device that meets your needs, so why bother complaining about the iPod touch?

In fact, I would wager that most of you complaining already own iPods. If you're not used to paring down the content you carry around already, then when will you be?

Besides, portable storage will always trail in capacity compared standard storage media. The only reason you guys have huge libraries today is because there are laptop and desktop drives that can hold that much. So in a few years, when there's a 200gb iPod touch, you guys will be complaining it doesn't hold all of your HD movies, and your terabytes of content.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to that.

[Sparkletron]

Originally Posted by Moonray 

Seems there’s a need for an external 500 GB HD storage with integrated WiFi.

Make that a *solid state* 500GB and damn the cost!

-S

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

You guys are a bunch a sticks in the mud.

So "most people" have a huge library of over 160gb eh? Well before today, how did you survive? What magical portable device were you using that held over 160gb, had a touch screen interface, and wasn't prohibitively expensive? Unless you're from the future, I doubt you have any current device that meets your needs, so why bother complaining about the iPod touch?

In fact, I would wager that most of you complaining already own iPods. If you're not used to paring down the content you carry around already, then when will you be?

Besides, portable storage will always trail in capacity compared standard storage media. The only reason you guys have huge libraries today is because there are laptop and desktop drives that can hold that much. So in a few years, when there's a 200gb iPod touch, you guys will be complaining it doesn't hold all of your HD movies, and your terabytes of content.

Ultimately, for me, iPods are about music. Give me more music and a worse interface over the coolest interface and not much music. Sure, I wish I could have both, but the choice is clear.

[Appleman]

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

You guys are a bunch a sticks in the mud.

Wow, that sounds sweet!
Well, my iPod 60GB is just overflowing, so I waited for a bigger one. People tend to buy CD's over time, so what was sufficient yesteryear becomes too small tomorrow. At least that is my case.
I could have bought the 80 GB but just waited for the expected bigger one, which today appeared to be 160 GB.
That's all. No need to talk the way you do, everybody has different needs. Some like the shuffle, others prefer 160GB, and some will love the touch. Fine with me.
Cheers.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Appleman 

Wow, that sounds sweet!
Well, my iPod 60GB is just overflowing, so I waited for a bigger one. People tend to buy CD's over time, so what was sufficient yesteryear becomes too small tomorrow. At least that is my case.
I could have bought the 80 GB but just waited for the expected bigger one, which today appeared to be 160 GB.
That's all. No need to talk the way you do, everybody has different needs. Some like the shuffle, others prefer 160GB, and some will love the touch. Fine with me.
Cheers.

Very true. My music has grown to about 23 gb since I got my iPod (started out at 6).

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by Appleman 

No need to talk the way you do, everybody has different needs.

My comments were directed at those who complained the iPod touch doesn't have a massive 160gb hard drive, not those who simply prefer one model over the other.

People need a reality check if they think you can just manufacture devices with every desirable feature without consideration for price, heat, data seek time, etc.

Besides, being a stick in the mud is the most harmless thing I can imagine calling someone. Except maybe being a bump on a log...

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Very true. My music has grown to about 23 gb since I got my iPod (started out at 6).

You just proved my point regarding some demanding users being in a perpetual state of disappointment. Standard hard drives get bigger, people's libraries grow, and portable storage will continue trailing behind for the foreseeable future. So how can those with massive libraries ever be satisfied with a portable device?

[Appleman]

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

So how can those with massive libraries ever be satisfied with a portable device?

Hm, according to the sales of iPods people are actually very happy with these portable devices. Nevertheless, indeed libraries do grow, and happily so do the harddisks

[dankar]

Why not an expansion SD slot? So that we can slap in a 8GB SD to complement the built-in 16GB. And upgrade the SD when bigger capacity is available. 16GB too small, my Dexter TV series would have taken up at least 6GB

[pyrite]

Different strokes for different folks... for many people this will be the ultimate player.

For a lot of us, however (and don't forget that most of us are power users), we want ALL our music on the go, and some extra for portable storage, so that everything is synchronised. I want the same songs in my car, on my ipod, that I have in my iTunes at home... I don't want the 16GB version of my Library. I want my Library.

Realistically, they could have done this, but this is clearly a device for mainstream consumers, that's where 90% of the market is... and it will knock their socks off. Slick, sexy, thin, and much more storage than a nano, which is what most people are used to anyway. For us, (or for me, anyway), they HAVE given us another option - a price-reduced iPod 'classic'.. 80GB at the new price point is very attractive indeed. I don't need touch screen on my ipod.

iPhone + iPod classic is a good combo IMO. One for phone and web/apps, the other for music/storage. I don't think many ppl want an inch-thick phone that does both and weighs a ton, and lasts 3 hrs on battery - im happy with 2 separate devices with 2 separate functions.

I do agree, however, that its an odd contradiction - a gorgeous high res widescreen device with insufficient storage for actually storing any good number of high res movies

[lpkmckenna]

Overall, this device seems kinda unfocused: the drive is a little too small for video and music, the apps are too few for internet (email? stocks? maps?), and the camera and bluetooth were ripped out for no reason. I just don't get it.

[Eug]

Camera and bluetooh. Meh. Not surprised.

I am surprised by the lack of widgets, Google Maps, and email though. Kinda dumb.

The memory is exactly what I've been asking for in the other thread. It's the shape of things to come. Hard drives in MP3 players are an anachronism. But for you guys, Apple now offers a 160 GB video iPod.

[King Bob On The Cob]

If it's hackable, I'll get it. It is lacking in apps to be the great PDA it could be.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Camera and bluetooh. Meh. Not surprised.

I think tearing out the bluetooth is a really low blow. With BT, it could have paired with a cell phone for internet access when WiFi wasn't available.

[Bruck]

Seriously please don't give people crap for wanting 160 (available), 80 (available all year), 60 (available for 2 years), 40 (available for 4 years), dare I say 30 (available since gen 2) GIGS OF DATA FOR THEIR LIBRARY.

Apple has supported (if not encouraged) the power user and music lover to build a home music collection and take it with them. Then they gave us video, so they gave us 40gb more room to store the files. Then they finally give us a device worthy of enjoying it all on and they screw us over with not enough space for anything more than my grandmother's record collection? Please its utter Bullsh*t.

The ultimate ipod had 80gb of storage. Now the "ultimate ipod" has 16gb?

[pyrite]

I guess you're right, if people were happy with a larger iPod before (video), there's no reason why they wouldn't be happy with one now...

I can't help but feeling this is an ipod nano replacement tho, and nano will be phased out in the next 12 months, permanently replaced by Touch. 4 iPod categories can't be a permanent move.

I predict that the following would be a logical ipod lineup 12 months from now:

iPod nano - replaced by iPod Touch permanently, with price drop
iPod Classic - replaced by Bigger iPod Touch with same functionality and sufficient case room for actual HD - 80/160GB
iPod shuffle - who knows, maybe 2-4gb flash mem, redesign

3 products, nice and neat again, both of the more popular products having next-gen touch functionality. That puts Apple in front.
With a name like 'Classic', this iPod Video rehash can't be a permanent fixture. Just a very, very welcome revision

[pyrite]

**having said this, I know the Touch is a bit large for a nano replacement - they may shrink the form factor a little if they're gona use it to replace nano permanently - its already not much bigger than a prev G nano

[icruise]

Originally Posted by dankar 

Why not an expansion SD slot? So that we can slap in a 8GB SD to complement the built-in 16GB. And upgrade the SD when bigger capacity is available. 16GB too small, my Dexter TV series would have taken up at least 6GB

I personally think that would be rather clunky and potentially problematic. Apple wouldn't do it because they don't have any incentive to make iPods upgradable (they'd rather you bought a new one) and because they wouldn't want to mess up their clean lines with something like an SD slot.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by icruise 

No, no there won't. If I understand correctly, he's talking about transferring directly from one iPod to another without the use of a computer.

Oops. I misunderstood.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by ph0ust 

yea, i have to say i am bummed, stunned and confused. the touch seems like what every apple fan ever has wanted. anyone with an ipod would want that. but with 16gb it is just a let down. sure many people are fine with that because they have only a little music or don't watch video or don't mind CONSTANTLY changing what is on their ipod, but honestly... that is a pretty small portion of ipod buyers. if that is what they want... they get a nano, and the new nano's are even better.

I think you've got it completely backwards: most people don't have huge music libraries. The Nano and the Shuffle outsell the larger iPods, and have smaller storage. I think most people found out what I found out, which is that I only listen to a small amount of music at any one time. Sometimes it's only an album or a few DJ sets at a time, which is easily under a GB. Movies on that small screen don't take up much space either.

The fact is that unless you keep your entire library on your iPod, you don't need 80 gigs of storage.

apple's stock is getting pummeled today! down over $7 last i checked and this on a day when apple releases "the best ipods ever". i think this is a message that they are segmenting their product lines too much and should have obviously just dropped the classic and released a fatter, hdd based touch.

Apple's stock almost always goes down after a keynote. Doesn't mean a thing.

[The Placid Casual]

Call me a 'stick in the mud', but really what does the thing offer for the money other than being flashy and giving other people 'kit envy'... in my eyes it is hugely flawed.

Why have a really cool tough screen, with all bells and whistles, if you can only get a few movies on there?

Why have web browsing capability if you can't actually input anything? or reply to your email etc

16g is *not* that much today, really, especially if you have your music at 320kbps... and for the price.

Really, it bugs me so much as the potential is there with this device, but they seem to have hobbled it on purpose!

I mean, think about this device:

Same form factor, same design.

- 16g

- Wi-Fi

-Web browsing and email client (or allow you to write emails on a keyboard or something in gmail).
Address Book.

- Skype! Allow someone to plug in an external mic, or have a mic integrated in to the headphones that come with the device, and allow the user to make skype calls!

- iCal function with input

-All the iPod features of the iPod Touch

Seriously, this would be KILLER, it would be a revolution, totally. Yes it would be a partial PDA, but I bet all the people pposting in this thread would be tempted to buy one!

Email and Skype on the move over wifi, full video iPod features.. winner right there.

For me, the iPod touch just seems to 'touch' (yes excuse the pun) at there areas, but delivers in none of them.

[icruise]

You do realize that you've basically described the iPhone, right? (Well, except for Skype and an additional 8GB of storage.)

[The Placid Casual]

Originally Posted by icruise 

You do realize that you've basically described the iPhone, right? (Well, except for Skype and an additional 8GB of storage.)

Kinda I guess, but I was thinking of an iPhone without the phone, camera, bluetooth etc but with skype instead. A purely wifi communication device...

I like my mobiles to be uber small, and don't trust Apple in this area tbh... and there is still no hope of anyone getting an iPhone in Europe any time soon.

[richwig83]

This is all i wanted... widescreen/touchscreen/80gb minimum .... i dont care for anymore feaures than that really, maybe wifi for syncing.

Until apple make an ipod similar to those specs. im holdin on to my 20gb photo.

[Gee4orce]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

... choosing tracks to put on a portable device should be a thing of the past!!!

It is. You use smart playlists.

Honestly, I moved from a 30Gb iPod to an 8Gb Nano, and I can barely tell the difference, because my smart playlists are intelligent enough to synch over music that I probably want to listen to (it's new, or highly rated, or I listened to it recently, etc).

Get creative with your smart playlists ! 16GB will be more than enough - it's more media than anyone can consume in a reasonable amount of time away from their computer. 16Gb equates to about 11 days of non-stop music, or a day and a half of video.

Unless you're setting off on a round the world trip, that's more than enough. If you are doing that trip, then you need the iPod Classic.

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce 

It is. You use smart playlists.

Honestly, I moved from a 30Gb iPod to an 8Gb Nano, and I can barely tell the difference, because my smart playlists are intelligent enough to synch over music that I probably want to listen to (it's new, or highly rated, or I listened to it recently, etc).

Get creative with your smart playlists ! 16GB will be more than enough - it's more media than anyone can consume in a reasonable amount of time away from their computer. 16Gb equates to about 11 days of non-stop music, or a day and a half of video.

Unless you're setting off on a round the world trip, that's more than enough. If you are doing that trip, then you need the iPod Classic.

QFT™. That's exactly my mentality.

How about we consider some of the reasons why a hard drive is not a good idea on a device like the touch:

• Spin up, Seek time - The version of OSX on the touch is much more memory consuming than the old, or even existing, iPod "classic" firmware. Obviously there needs to be a lot of caching on the fly in order for it to function as smoothly as it does. If you're switching apps or surfing the web, the hard drive would have to potentially spin up, seek, and read that data. That is much slower than reading something off of NAND, which is super fast. I suspect Apple found that the physical limits of small hard drives simply detracted from the user experience too much.
  
• Heat, vibration, wear and tear - for most of the same reasons above, all that data access on a small drive (note the drive would likely be writing to its drive more often than a "classic" iPod) is also the cause of a lot of physical factors which would seriously affect the life of the product.
  
• Battery - The likely frequent spin ups and usage of the drive would drain the battery much faster. Consider the fact that the iPod touch has a huge screen to power, in addition to a much beefier (and therefore more voltage-consuming) processor than its predecessors. If it had a hard drive in there, they would either have terrible playback time (especially for video) or they would have to put in a bigger battery, which would affect cost.

[ajprice]

Top right of the screen, next to the battery icon. F**k up or unannounced feature???

[SpencerLavery]

Well spotted.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce 

It is. You use smart playlists.

Yes, but what if you need to find an old song quickly that's not in your playlist and you can't get to your computer in time?

There are some people who would rather carry their entire library around at all times and not have to pick and choose. I'm one of those people (and I'm a power user). My 67 year old father is one of those people, and he's not very computer literate at all. He knows how to browse the web and use iTunes and that's about it. He's a musician and appreciates the ability to have everything available at all times. He's going to get my old 60 GB iPod as his 30 GB is hitting its limit. Mom will get his 30 GB (even though she only has 1 GB of music) because her 2 GB 1st generation iPod nano got stolen.

[richwig83]

Smart playlist =

Complete itunes library =

[ajprice]

Originally Posted by SpencerLavery 

Well spotted.

Well it wasn't my spot, found the article on Engadget - http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/06/d...ave-bluetooth/

[icruise]

You know, if Dot.Tunes can just get their program working better, it would alleviate a lot of these concerns about storage capacity (at least for people who have wifi networks available in most of the places they spend their time). I've been using it to access my entire video library at home, and it works great (if you can get past some issues). I haven't been able to get it to work properly with public wifi networks, though (possibly because of their firewalls) so its use is limited at the moment.

[iREZ]

all the complainers need to get off your high horse...if you want the functionality of the iphone, get the iphone, if you think 16gb is too small apple did release the same ipod you probably own with TWICE the storage (160gb!!!) of before on the high end and countless more hours for music payback. the ipod touch has its own market right now, and untill flash drives reach the 80gb threshold without costing an arm and a leg you get 16gb. i personally think apple's marketing and introductions of these new products is pretty brilliant, and they've kept their genius pricing strategy to boot.

and for those that think the ipod touch is the next great ipod, you're crazy...can you imagine using your ipod touch while jogging? or while in the car driving? hello!!! you need two hands to use the damn thing...i personally see no use for the ipod touch and prefer the classic 160gb (too bad id have to buy another external HD to back up everything that'd go on an ipod with that much storage).

[icruise]

You don't actually need two hands to use an iPhone (or presumably an iPod touch). It's pretty easy to hold it in your hand and operate it with your thumb. That said, the touch wheel definitely has some advantages.

[tonewheel]

I have a 60gig video ipod, and it's loaded to the gills with tunes and flicks. But I am definitely leaning toward a new ipod touch 16 gig. Why is this OK? While it's nice to mirror my itunes library on my 'pod and have it with me, the reality is that I never listen to all of it....not even close. I'm into my itunes library often enough (nightly) and can load up a 16 gig device sans problem, and I am good to go.

I suspect most people are the same way. While it may require a bit more effort on your part, a 16 gig flash unit is just fine. Not to mention everything else the ipod touch can do.

[CharlesS]

16 GB is almost as much as my 20 GB fourth-generation iPod. And I've managed to almost - but not quite - fill that one up (although my collection is music-only, no video). I could pretty easily fit all my stuff on an iPod Touch, I think, if I left off some of the stuff I don't like that much and reripped some of the other stuff at a lower bit rate.

A 32 GB iPod Touch, which I'm sure will be coming in the next revision or so, would be larger than the entry-level 5G iPod, and should be more than plenty for most users.

I rather like the idea of the iPod Touch - it basically incorporates all the things about the iPhone that are good (touch screen, iPod, web browser) and leaves out most of the parts that suck (basically, the phone parts). The non-replaceable battery is also much less of a problem on the iPod Touch than on the iPhone since you're not without a cell phone while you wait for it to be sent back after you've mailed it in to get the battery replaced.

[Jason Adams]

My current iPod is a 4 gig mini and for what I use if for now - or what 4 gigs has reduced to me to - is strictly for podcasts. This new iPod is the ultimate podcast machine! If you can download music at any Starbucks, tell me why I won't be able to update my podcasts at same? The widescreen will now let me view the ever more prevalent video podcasts that I currently now have to view on my home machine. I am buying one and I will be a happy camper/commuter.

[ajprice]

Originally Posted by ajprice 

(touch with a BT icon image)

Top right of the screen, next to the battery icon. F**k up or unannounced feature???

Originally Posted by ajprice 

Well it wasn't my spot, found the article on Engadget - Does Apple's iPod touch have Bluetooth? - Engadget

Looks like it was a f**k up, the image has been changed to one without a bluetooth icon. Ah well.

[dpicardi]

Originally Posted by Parky 

It's perfect for me, so I have ordered a 16GB model.

To all those who while about 16GB, just be selective with your music. Make some cleaver playlists that select your favorite tracks, limit the playlists to a certain size.

I have the following playlists on my 4GB nano and they work great :-

1 that has 1GB of my most recent addition to iTunes, so I always have the recent store purchases or CD loads.

1 that has 2GB of my most favorite tracks (4 stars or more), that have not been played in the last 6 months, the playlist also selects the tracks first that have the lowest number of play counts.

1 that has 1 GB of music that I select manually, things that are just 'hot' at the moment.

Ian

Nice ideas. I need to be more creative when making my own playlists. Thanks for the idea.

[iREZ]

Originally Posted by icruise 

You don't actually need two hands to use an iPhone (or presumably an iPod touch). It's pretty easy to hold it in your hand and operate it with your thumb. That said, the touch wheel definitely has some advantages.

you're telling me you could do the unlock slide movement and then start navigating through your music folder with only one hand without doing an awkward balancing act on your hand? not being condescending but i'm 6'3 and my hands measure 8 1/4" from tip of middle finger to the bottom of my palm and i don't think i could do what i mentioned above.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ajprice 

Looks like it was a f**k up, the image has been changed to one without a bluetooth icon. Ah well.

More likely: the bluetooth hardware is actually in the iPod touch, but Apple has decided to deactivate it. Isn't the WiFi and BT powered by the same chip in the iPhone?

We've seen this before: iMacs with USB2 chips and MacBooks with WiFi-n chips, but not being activated by Apple.

Why? Beyond the BT headset, does BT do anything else for the iPhone?

[icruise]

Originally Posted by iREZ 

you're telling me you could do the unlock slide movement and then start navigating through your music folder with only one hand without doing an awkward balancing act on your hand? not being condescending but i'm 6'3 and my hands measure 8 1/4" from tip of middle finger to the bottom of my palm and i don't think i could do what i mentioned above.

Absolutely. Remember, you can wake up the phone by pressing the home button. Then just slide the slider with your thumb. That's how I usually wake up the phone.

[ph0ust]

i know some people are cool with 16gb, and that's great for you all. at a minimum, apple is screwing up their messaging, however, because they keep touting the touch as a video device. while 16gb is great for people with small music collections consider this: the os takes up what? maybe 800mb, so your down to lets just say 15gb. throw on a few movies and several tv shows (forget about an entire season to catch up on), amybe some music videos, and then add music. how much of each of these do you think you are going to get?

that is the problem. apple rolled out the "best ipod ever" and limited their own intended use of the thing: to house your media.

it may work for some folks specifically, but the sentiment is that apple created a terribly compromised version of a key product that would bring them *inline* with the competition.... so compromised it can't effectively do what they market it to be used for.

the touch is seriously cool, i think everyone agrees with that. apple just really blew it on their implementation. that is hard to disagree with when you have analysts galore critisizing them and their stock plummets on the day they make a HUGE product announcement. as of now, it's still dropping too.

[tonewheel]

I don't think that 134 (as of right now) is "plummeting". Par for the market, actually. Sounds like you're a great candidate for the 160GB iPod Classic. There's always something for everyone!

[ph0ust]

dude, $9+ since the announcement of a major product release... you call it an "adjustment"... i'll stick with a plummet considering the timing. perhaps if they drop 10% it becomes a concern?!?! i normally like to see my investments move positively when the company has a MAJOR announcement/product launch.

[ph0ust]

btw, i have an "ipod classic" albeit not the one announced yesterday. given that i still have space on it (albeit almost none), why would i, or someone in my similar situation, buy one? if you critically need more space, i am sure they will sell a few... but considering it is essentially the same thing it isn't too appealing. most people like me will wait until apple realizes they have to release a hdd based touch. then i'll go get that. until then... they don't get my money.

it's this exact issue that is at least partially responsible for the drop in share price.