[feefer]

I think most of you are missing where we're going by focusing on memory limitations. All you need is sufficient memory to have videos and music that you want/need for a week or so (if travelling, i.e. inbetween syncs), as the iPhone/iTouch are not master storage devices (your home computer is). The wi-fi store is a nice touch for casual downloading of music "on the fly".
Where are we going?
I have access to the ENTIRE contents of my iTunes library (music, movies, T.V. shows, etc) using a program called dot tunes (www.dottunes.net). It's a pretty amazing program which has been around awhile, but the developer has just released an iPhone plug-in that allows you to STREAM any of your library contents from your library in REAL TIME on demand to your iPhone for remote viewing/listening. That's right: the ENTIRE library, regardless of whatever memory you iPhone has.
Dot tunes turns your home computer into a server, and converts music and videos to Quick Time format on demand. It's password protected from the Safari browser, and you can even support multiple users to share your library. The program works great, even over EDGE (although obviously you'll get faster streaming over wi-fi with EVDO/DSL, and your WLAN, etc). If any of you are familiar with seeqpod.com, it offers essentially the same functionality (Quick Time playback), except using YOUR library, not some random source.
As far as I'm concerned, the memory "limits" of 8 or 16GB is no limit at all, once you comprehend where all of this is going...

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

I think they have made a huge mistake. Ipod classic music based @ 160gb and ipod touch video based @ 16gb what are they thinking?

---

From what I can tell, the problem is that larger-capacity flash chips are still quite expensive. To put, say, 64GB in an iPod touch would have resulted in a much higher price tag. And putting a hard drive in there would have (a) increased the size significantly (Apple seems to have a vision of the iPhone and iPod touch as thin devices); and (b) reduced battery life substantially (thanks to the huge, bright screen and WiFi, the iPhone and iPod touch already have shorter battery lives than other iPods).
My prediction is that as the price of larger flash-memory modules comes down, the iPod touch will gain much more storage -- 32GB, then 64GB, then 128GB -- and the iPod classic will be retired.

Quote:

---

This is first ipod since lauch that has made we consider another brand. As I said big mistake imo and no sale for me.

---

So is there another vendor out there that has a player like the iPod touch with a 160GB hard drive? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[neil74]

Come on stop defending them. Whatever way you spin it 16gb on a video based device is not enough. If everybody managed their music as frugally as some of you appear to then why do we need 80 or 160gb music pods?
Fact is they (on the assumption that it is an apple product and looks damn sexy) thought that they could tweak and re-badge the iphone rather than design a new device.
Personally I do not care how slim a device is my current 80gb 5g pod is just fine, I'd have taken that form factor with a full frontal screen, that with built in wi-fi was all I wanted.

[MacCheetah3]

Hi
There are always advantages / disadvantages to different product lines. That's obvious, since that's why different product lines exist. So, you're not a target iPod touch customer but rather n iPod classic customer. Done.

[mcbane666]

Agreed.
Ipod Classic Is a Video Ipod, Ipod Touch Is a Touch Ipod that plays Video. How come your not tearing apart the Nano because it only has 4gb and 8gb and plays video?

[neil74]

I have been very happy with my ipod video 5g and have chosen it over the larger screen'd PSP I own just because it is far more user friendly and has a lot more capacity.
I am not an ipod classic customer as whilst I have been happy with my 5g pod the fact is that the screen is just too small and I have been hoping (and expecting) that they would put this right. They have but at the same time have taken away most of the benefits of the 5g pod too.
I am almost certain that but for the iphone things would have been very different but that apple could not resist the benefits of a shared production line. I think that once all the dust has settled a lot of people will realise that it is not the one of the seven wonders of the world after all and to use a metaphor it is like a Ferrari with a Ford fiesta's fuel tank fitted.
If I was Sony or Microsoft I'd be delighted.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

Come on stop defending them.

---

sigh
Look, I'm simply noting the direction the market is heading. Hard-drive-based media players are a dying breed. As soon as it becomes economical to use huge flash-memory modules in these players, Apple -- and every other vendor -- will dump hard drives in (pardon the pun) a flash.
Until then (and I'm thinking that will be sometime next year) do you seriously expect Apple to design, manufacture, and market an entirely different line of players (a hard-drive-based iPod touch) -- a tremendously expensive undertaking -- knowing full well that the line would be killed off in the not-too-distant future? I think it's safe to say that Apple wants nothing more than to be able to offer the iPod touch in 64GB or even 128GB capacities, and to get rid of the nice-but-showing-its-age iPod classic completely.

Quote:

---

Whatever way you spin it 16gb on a video based device is not enough.

---

Please show me where, exactly, I said that 8GB or 16GB was enough for a video player. On the contrary, I've said several times -- here in the forums, in Macworld articles, on the Macworld podcast -- that it's disappointing that the best video-watching iPod has so little storage capacity.

Believe it or not, it is possible to be disappointed in something while at the same time understanding the reasons behind it.

[PITBULL831]

Well looking throw the post i could see both side of this ...
On one hand you have the people that want more memory , and yes apple could have done something with mroe memory ... The iPod Touch is 8mm Thick , witch is really thin , but if could have built it thicker , say the same thickness as the iPhone witch is 11. something mm Thick . At that point there they could have done the same HDDs that they are using for the iPod Classics , Witch is the 1.8" HDDs , that can handle up to 80GBs of memory . With that as an option they could have done two based modles , One with 40GBs and one with 80GBs ...
One the other hand you have the people that do make even a better point , using HDDs would have make the iPod Touch use more power , witch at this point 22 hours of Music and 5 Hours of Video play back is alot for something so small . The iPod Tuch using an HDD Based system would have needed at the least twice the power to make it have the power that it does at the point . Meaning that they would have had to make it even thicker , so now we are looking at an iPod Touch that would have been somewhere is the line of 13 to 15mm thick , and that right there would have been thicker then the iPod Classic , and would have looked like a brick .
Looking at pass products , like the ZUNE . Thick never does better , Apple is looking at the future as well . Seeing how HDDs are using up more power in a small device , Flash Memory would take that power cost down allot . Save time from always pluggin in your iPod and mroe time using your iPod .
Now if you ask me , i think apple could have done somethign a little more about the memory . Seeing how they are buying the memory for the iPod Touch in huge loads of them , Apple could have build in two version ...
16GBs for the 299 version , using two 8GB Flash memory cards , and and 32GBs for the 399 version using four 8GBs flash memory cards . even if they had to build the 32GB iPod Touch alittle thicker , consumers would have been a little mroe happy with those options . Im use the 32GB Version would have been there most popular sale , the consumers would have been allot more intrested in it , rather then saying that the memory is to little .
Seeing that the iPod Touch is designed for those consumers that want an iPod that could player there MOVIES , MUSIC VIDEOS and TV SHOWS , as well as hold all there music . 16 and 32 GB versions at this time would have looked alot better to the consumers .
Yes there is products out there that have been doing the Widescreen thing ( ZUNE and CREATIVE ) Apple is still the top dog when it cones to these devices , and couse you have products like the Zune and Creative Zen that do hold 30 to 60GBs of memroy , apple should have tryed to match them in some way .

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

The iPod Touch is 8mm Thick , witch is really thin , but if could have built it thicker , say the same thickness as the iPhone witch is 11. something mm Thick . At that point there they could have done the same HDDs that they are using for the iPod Classics...

---

Don't forget that the touchscreen on the iPod touch and iPhone is much bigger and thicker than the screen on the iPod classic, so there's less room behind and below it. Put a hard drive in there and the player is going to be quite a bit thicker than 11mm.

Quote:

---

Yes there is products out there that have been doing the Widescreen thing ( ZUNE and CREATIVE ) Apple is still the top dog when it cones to these devices , and couse you have products like the Zune and Creative Zen that do hold 30 to 60GBs of memroy , apple should have tryed to match them in some way .

---

I don't know which Creative player you're referring to, but the Zune doesn't have a widescreen display. Its screen has the exact same resolution as that of the 5G iPod and iPod classic -- same number of pixels, each pixel is just bigger. So the screen looks bigger, but it's also not as sharp. The Zune is much more comparable to the iPod classic than to the iPod touch.

[PITBULL831]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The iPod Touch is 8mm Thick , witch is really thin , but if could have built it thicker , say the same thickness as the iPhone witch is 11. something mm Thick . At that point there they could have done the same HDDs that they are using for the iPod Classics...

---

Quote:

---

Don't forget that the touchscreen on the iPod touch and iPhone is much bigger and thicker than the screen on the iPod classic, so there's less room behind and below it. Put a hard drive in there and the player is going to be quite a bit thicker than 11mm.

---

Sorry you read what i wrote wrong ... I was saying that the iPod Touch if built with the Same 1.8" HDD that is being built into the iPod Classic would make the iPod Touch thicker , and would make the iPod Touch use up more power then it is designed for at this time .... So if they build an iPod Touch HDD with say 80GBs , they would also have to make the battery twice the size it is now to hold more power , at least twice the power that the iPod Touch is got at this point ... That would make the iPod Touch at least 16mm Thick , Twice as thick as as the iPod Touch is now , they would have to do this for an HDD Version . room for the HDD and a bigger battery ....

Quote:

---

Yes there is products out there that have been doing the Widescreen thing ( ZUNE and CREATIVE ) Apple is still the top dog when it cones to these devices , and couse you have products like the Zune and Creative Zen that do hold 30 to 60GBs of memroy , apple should have tryed to match them in some way .

---

Quote:

---

I don't know which Creative player you're referring to, but the Zune doesn't have a widescreen display. Its screen has the exact same resolution as that of the 5G iPod and iPod classic -- same number of pixels, each pixel is just bigger. So the screen looks bigger, but it's also not as sharp. The Zune is much more comparable to the iPod classic than to the iPod touch.

---

Creative does have a Widescreen ZEN . Its called the ZEN Version , Here the like ....
http://www.creative....1&product=15752
The Creative version has 30 and 60GB version , and a bigger screen . I think its a 4" Widescreen ... But it not something that you could carry around in your back pocket ....

[smax013]

Quote:

---

From what I can tell, the problem is that larger-capacity flash chips are still quite expensive. To put, say, 64GB in an iPod touch would have resulted in a much higher price tag. And putting a hard drive in there would have (a) increased the size significantly (Apple seems to have a vision of the iPhone and iPod touch as thin devices); and (b) reduced battery life substantially (thanks to the huge, bright screen and WiFi, the iPhone and iPod touch already have shorter battery lives than other iPods).
My prediction is that as the price of larger flash-memory modules comes down, the iPod touch will gain much more storage -- 32GB, then 64GB, then 128GB -- and the iPod classic will be retired.

---

While I am disappointed with the 16 gb limit of the iPod Touch and that Apple did not use a hard drive in it, I can understand the most likely reason. I guessing the power issue was the driving factor. I don't really buy the size arguement. While I certainly agree that putting in a hard drive would have increased the size, I personally don't believe it would have mattered. The power issue and battery life could have been a legitmate problem that just could not be overcome at this time (much like Apple claims to be the reason behind not doing 3G on the iPhone). Considering the iPod Touch is supposedly at a 5 hour battery life with video (and factor in that Apple's estimates are sometimes a tad on the optimistic side), then I could see some battery life issues with a hard drive based iPod Touch. It doesn't do much good to have gobs of storage space if your battery craps out after watching one movie on it.
End result is that my 5.5g iPod works fine for me for now. So, while the iPod Touch is rather tempting, I will likely wait until they get it "right"...at least what I consider "right".

[neil74]

I'll be sticking with my 5.5g pod too. I keep trying to go over how I could make a touch work for me and I just can't, 32gb probably would be ok, just. It's a shame as I guess we are looking at a least a year before they update the thing. A micro SD slot would have been a good compromise and would have given people the option to get up to 24gb.
A couple of 8gb cards will bring my PSP up to ipod touch specs and plays games too. Not as sleek looking though.
Another thing how is the wifi itunes going to work with unsecured public hotspots? When I use my laptop at these I would never dream of buying anything or using a password that links to anything secure such as payment info, even if you pre-fill your password it still has to be sent over an unsecured network? Have I missed something?

[common1]

Quote:

---

It's possible they could add that in a software update, but you could always just use safari to check email via a webmail program. It doesn't seem to come with a mail program though.

---

well they better add it...but I do find it weird that they added contact and no mail function..I know Apple isnt expecting us to have an iPhone in one pocket and iPod touch in another???? They should/will add mail to the "touch"...

[smax013]

Quote:

---

well they better add it...but I do find it weird that they added contact and no mail function..I know Apple isnt expecting us to have an iPhone in one pocket and iPod touch in another???? They should/will add mail to the "touch"...

---

Contacts and calenders and notes were not a stretch to have on the iPod Touch...it is something that you can sync with older iPods already. I currently can sync my address book and my calendar with my 5.5 gen video iPod and my 3rd gen 30 gb iPod, so it would be strange if they did not include a similar ability in the iPod Touch, even if the ability is MUCH more sophisticated (i.e. you can edit the entries I would think in the Touch).