Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New iPod Nanos to be Multicolored?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I remember Apple spent quite a lot of R&D on the injection plastic techniques used on the Flower Power (my first Mac btw!) and Blue Dalmation iMacs. Would make sense for them to use it again on something as popular as the Nanos.
jx
jx
Odd, I must be the the only person with 300gigs of content. I'm still waiting for an iPod that will hold all my stuff.
lol, and unless you ripped it all at CD quality, you'd be listening for about four months straight to get through that library.... and I'm almost sure you'd have run your battery through the extent of it's recharge cycles too
How about getting two iPod classics?
It won't go multi-touch like people have suggested. Apple just redesigned the GUI on the iPod touch.
The next step appears to be 240 GB on the high-end.
Is there any HDD company making 240GB drives? Or would it be 2 120GB drives in one unit? I too need increasingly more space and I'm hoping that Apple won't drop the HDD iPod classic line until such a time as high capacity flash storage becomes affordable.
agreed. they could make things a lot easier on themselves that way. I can see a reason for nixing silver for the new iphone cause then you can tell in a second that a phone is the new or old but they should have gone either white or black. if someone doesn't like that, buy a case. they probably will anyway.
same with the shuffles and nanos. keep it simple. silver and black and red. I say keep the red because that is part of Project Red which is the U2 started charity program (which is why there was a u2 ipod for a while as I recall). but dump the other colors even. or if they don't want to totally dump the colors, do some kind of stick on or faceplate system.
Just because you don't have a large music collection doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of us who collections that far exceed the available storage offered by the iPod classic. I'd love to one day see an iPod with a TB of storage....
You also would never in a million years need that much space on your friggen portable music player. Browsing through it would be insanely hard, you wouldn't be able to find anything. Do you NEVER want to hear the same song twice? I'm completely willing to bet that you don't even listen to HALF of your music collection frequently at all.
that amount of storage wouldn't matter.
a) battery life would take decades to advance far enough to let you even scrape the surface of your music collection.
b) by the time the technology comes out for that, you could do it simpler and lighter. With Apple's wireless push, just stream the music from home...save the weight of a hard drive, throw in another battery. OH but wait, don't we already have that technology? it's called an iPod Touch and WIFI!.. or iPhone and whatever other network you want.
a) battery life would take decades to advance far enough to let you even scrape the surface of your music collection.
b) by the time the technology comes out for that, you could do it simpler and lighter. With Apple's wireless push, just stream the music from home...save the weight of a hard drive, throw in another battery. OH but wait, don't we already have that technology? it's called an iPod Touch and WIFI!.. or iPhone and whatever other network you want.
I remember when someone once said you'll never in a million years need anything bigger than a 20GB hard drive for your PC.
Your use of a portable music player is obviously quite different than mine.
You do realize that some people like to take their whole library with them right? I'm 17 and my iTunes library is about 70GB (all legal). Granted not all of it is music, some is movies and videos, but combined with my photo library that I would also like to have on my iPod that's about 130GB of content. I don't own an iPod classic, (I have a 5G iPod) I wouldn't mind the 160GB model so I could carry all my media with me.
Wow...thanks so much for telling me what I need & don't need and for knowing how exactly I use my own portable device. I'll see you in Vegas and I'll take your bet. Why do you even care how much space other people want/need or how/if they listen to what's on their own iPod?
LOL, reminds me of Bill Gates and what he said about the amount of ram people would ever need.
Anyway, if I go buy an album, I might only like on or two songs from it. Yet I prefer my music to be sorted as albums and not have a "holed" library, so to speak.
But what's with you people? You guys would have claimed five years ago that noone could ever want or need a TB of storage (for, say, photos).
Man, so many things are wrong with that statement.
a) Battery life? Really? So you have this idea that if one has a big music collection one has to be able to listen to the whole of it without ever letting your iPod charge? You must be kidding me!
b)Wireless push? So, you're telling me, that you want to stream your lossless files or even uncompressed files (in my case usually up to 24bit/48kHz stereo files) over a 3G network or even wifi (which aren't available everywhere).
What a ridiculous "solution" (it's in """ because it's not even close to a solution) made up to pretend that the iPhone or Touch is a better solution than actually having it physically with you.
Reminds me of the people who cannot fathom why on earth one would have the need for a USB stick/Disk mode/portable hdd etc., because it's "the internet is everywhere", forgetting that it's not always a "neat solution" to use the internet, and often it's butt slow and you cannot rely on it to have access to whatever you want. Portable Apps spring to mind.
Edit: The only person being reasonable about this is Soreo. When he (I assume you're a "he") discovered why people might need and quickly fill 160GB, he acknowledged that that sort of space might be useful for some. You other guys seem to not being able to get it at all. And what's worse, you don't even recognise legit reasons for actually bringing your audio with you. I guess we should have all stayed with 50MB audio players.
You're assuming those technologies would be ready.
but do you realize how long it'd take to make a matchbox-sized 1 TB drive? notebook drives are *JUST* starting to reach 500 GB. And for a full desktop sized hard drive, you're talking ~$200 for that kind of space. Flash based would put you over $3000, and that's with the latest technology breakthroughs by OCZ and Samsung.
Yes, i do admit that wireless coverage isn't complete, but hey. you're projecting into the future, and so am I. It's going to improve.
And need i point out one of the more popular apps for the iPhone and Touch? *coughPandoracough*
You could also... oh, i don't know, reshuffle things onto your iPod of a lower capacity? Get a new sampling of an inordinately large library?
but do you realize how long it'd take to make a matchbox-sized 1 TB drive? notebook drives are *JUST* starting to reach 500 GB. And for a full desktop sized hard drive, you're talking ~$200 for that kind of space. Flash based would put you over $3000, and that's with the latest technology breakthroughs by OCZ and Samsung.
Yes, i do admit that wireless coverage isn't complete, but hey. you're projecting into the future, and so am I. It's going to improve.
And need i point out one of the more popular apps for the iPhone and Touch? *coughPandoracough*
You could also... oh, i don't know, reshuffle things onto your iPod of a lower capacity? Get a new sampling of an inordinately large library?
I hope that they change the physical appearance of the nano. I'm not a big fan of the "fat" iPod.
I agree. I think that the best iPod apple has released so far were the 4GB color second generation iPod nanos. Those were so pretty! I wish I didn't sell mine.
Noone is assuming a one TB will be "ready" for an iPod. He talked about what he would like. You, on the other hand, dismiss it, and claim the technology to stream it through wifi and 3g is already ready for prime time, and how nobody would ever need so much space. Go take a look at my earlier post how much audio I have. And you're telling me to use a 3g network to access it. How swell.
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's useless or anything like that.
What's your point? That because something is expensive right now, there's no need for it?
There is very little chance of Wi-Fi coverage being "complete". And how the hell do you expect to stream huge file sizes (wide band) over wi-fi on the train or in your car? And even if WiFi coverage becomes the norm _most anywhere_ do you really expect those hot spots (and the associated net-connection) to be able to cope with everyone logging on to stream their files?
So? Just because something is popular doesn't mean that the needs of those people are the only needs out there. You're making a McDonald's argument (and a strawman even all jumbled together):
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Why? So it's okay to want your library to go, but if it supercedes the offerings at hand, then suddenly one shouldn't want that? Please!
I'm sorry, but I both need and want full control of my audio. I certainly don't want to stream it in some inferiour quality.
a) No, not at all. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean it's useless. Please, go right ahead and pour out your life savings for something that has years to go before reaching market maturity.
b) God forbid, 5 megs spread out over the span of 4 minutes. And what a horrendous thought: *Every single person* in a Starbucks suddenly wants a full quality version of songs they have...
Do you happen to have $70 headphones to take advantage of every last low-hertz bass thump in your 300 kbps ripped tracks?
As for your car... it's a car... if Microsoft has it their way, you're gonna have a personal computer integrated into the thing, or wherever the heck Sync technology goes.
And how long do you really expect your train rides to be? If you're a commuter, you'd likely be multitasking with... oh, i don't know, a laptop? If you're going for a long trip... i don't know... a laptop? If you're a little more budget constrained... oh, i don't know a regular current gen iPod?...
as for me, I'm going to go eat lunch instead of pouring my life into the merits of having lots of music (which i suppose would be a big bonus in college...) Props to you if you can acquire 500+ GB of music and mange to listen to it all.
That's just a bad idea alltogether.
You can't even experience true HD with such tiny screens. Even if they have they have the proper resolution, you can't see the minor difference when the screen is 7in big.... =\
Sigh! YOu have said and inferred that more storage is NOT NEEDED. For christs sake!
What is it you don't get?
Four minutes of 16bit/44.1kHz is not 5 MBs, it's 40MB. From the looks of it you don't even have a clue what we're talking about when we talk about lossless, uncompressed and bitrates.
LOL, "$70 headphones" is "taking advantage of every little bass thump"?
Goes to show how little you know. An uncompressed file directly from a CD is 16bit/44.1 khz is 1.411 kbps. A lossless of that is about 60 percent, or 850kbps. A 24bit/48kHz file in stereo is 2.300kbps!
Sheesh, I cannot believe you're STILL acting like streaming lossless/uncompressed audio like this - especially considering you don't even have a clue as to what "uncompressed" entails.
And your - in your mind - "super headphones @ $70"? I have the ER4 in-ears, the HD25-1 monitor headphones, and I got lucky, and got a pretty good deal on the Grado PS-1 headphones. Go look up the prices of those things, and you'll realise how ridiculous your statement is.
And you want me to purchase that instead of merely have a player with sufficient storage? What happens when you're on a plane, a taxi, a train, a ferry? You want to install all that crap there as well, instead of simply upping the storage?
It's not about "budget". It's about keeping it simple. Besides, even in a laptop I can't have everything, secondly, there's the little matter of battery time, and then there's the fact, when I do commute by train, I can seldomly sit. Don't be daft.
You really are a treat. It has been more than twenty years since I got out of college. But I know why you're saying what you're saying: You have no clue that some people actually prefer not to listen to lossy formats such as MP3, MP4, WMA and so on. Please reread the above, as this is not about having "loads of music" - It's about having audio in a proper format. An uncompressed CD is 11 times the size of 128kbps Mp3/Mp4.
See above. And PLEASE do us all a favour and do just a little research before you utter more of your nonsense.
Add: Not only do I listen to it, but the 6-800 gigs of non-music audio? I have not only listened to it, but produced it.
Okay, well pardon me on my format deficiencies. I cede that point.
but now, having established that we're talking about a particular breed of audiophiles that has requirements far from the norm, shouldn't we just throw all these preconceptions aside?
If you're that hell-bent on quality, you're bound to look further than just an iPod refresh...
but now, having established that we're talking about a particular breed of audiophiles that has requirements far from the norm, shouldn't we just throw all these preconceptions aside?
If you're that hell-bent on quality, you're bound to look further than just an iPod refresh...
Wow. Another great page 1 story. Not.
Doesn't 'tacky gimmick' usually spell 'end of the line' at Apple?
That imac run on wacky color combos was close to the end of the crt gum drops. I would similarly expect the iPod nano is going into the toilet by january 2010. iPod touch will take over, with the shuffle always keeping a low end market in order.
Doesn't 'tacky gimmick' usually spell 'end of the line' at Apple?
That imac run on wacky color combos was close to the end of the crt gum drops. I would similarly expect the iPod nano is going into the toilet by january 2010. iPod touch will take over, with the shuffle always keeping a low end market in order.