Regarding the new iPods

Apple released some new iPod products today. However, I wasn’t able to find what I need.

What I wanted was the iPod Touch model, but with a hard drive. Their 8 and 16 GB models means limited storage to me, considering that I also do video. So, I have to go with iPod Classic that comes with 80 GBs. Problem is, the iPod Classic only has a 2.5″ screen instead of a 3.5″, and none of the extra features of the Touch. As for the new Nano, I can reproduce all features in it on my Symbian phones (and with bigger screens than its 2.0″).

So what should I do? Get the iPod Classic now and be done with it, or wait a year and hope for an iPod Touch with a hard drive (and possibly Bluetooth too)? I don’t know… What I do know is that my 4GB iPod Mini is now aged, out of space, and with no video functionality.

12 Comments »

Renan wrote on September 5th, 2007 at 12:48 PM PST:

An ipod Touch with a hard drive?! Sounds cool but I seriously doubt this product is intended to be used with a HDD. Now when those solid state drives Seagate has been talking about come out, all bets are on. They’ve been saying up to 160GB by next year but no word on how big these will be. They will probably be very expensive but I’m sure Apple R&D is paying close attention.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on September 5th, 2007 at 12:52 PM PST:

I don’t care if it comes in the form of a hard drive, flash or punched cards, I just need 40 GBs minimum.


Ian Wilkinson wrote on September 5th, 2007 at 1:34 PM PST:

It’s the screen resolution that counts, not the size. Just hold the unit one inch closer to your face!


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on September 5th, 2007 at 1:52 PM PST:

Ian, don’t be silly. I am not going to hold the iPod Classic closer to my face in an uncomfortable position for 2 hours just so I go around Apple’s stupid decision to not offer an HDD-based Touch. Funnily, online, people are unhappy about the same thing too (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), plus the removal of Mail.app. Besides, the Touch has a larger resolution anyway, so your point is mute.


Ian Wilkinson wrote on September 5th, 2007 at 1:57 PM PST:

Eugenia, get yourself a sense of humour. Fair point about the resolution though.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on September 5th, 2007 at 1:59 PM PST:

If that was humor, learn to use smileys. 😉


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on September 5th, 2007 at 2:12 PM PST:

Here’s Gizmodo’s 5 things to love/hate in the new line up. Right on target!


Ian Wilkinson wrote on September 5th, 2007 at 2:13 PM PST:

Where I come from, smiley’s aren’t necessary, but if you insist.

:-):-):-):-) :-):-):-):-):-):-) :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)


Eric wrote on September 5th, 2007 at 2:17 PM PST:

I agree… I was disappointed.. 8 or 16GB? c’mon! How much harder is it to put a Hard Drive in it!! At least I can get an ipod classic 80GB for same price as the older 30GB .. “sigh”


David wrote on September 5th, 2007 at 4:15 PM PST:

Please excuse my pedantic nature.
Mute = quiet or silenced
Moot = no longer relevant
🙂

David


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on September 5th, 2007 at 4:20 PM PST:

In this case, I guess it’s both.


Denis wrote on September 6th, 2007 at 7:02 AM PST:

I guess the lack of HDD is a trade-off for battery life.
The Touch certainly has a much higher power consumption (bigger screen, possibly much more powerful processor…). AFAIK Flash consumes much less power than hard drives.

Would you be willing to get 80 Gbs if the battery life was significantly diminished?

I’m just shooting in the dark here, no actual basis for that speculation. An explanation from Apple would be nice (but they are not known to be very forthcoming with their limitations so…)


Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.