a 160 GB ipod touch would be the same price if it used a hard drive.
what the hell is the point of the big screen if you can't put movies on it? they rolled out their media device and kicked it in the nuts before it even got to stand up.
way to go, apple. They're really turning into microsoft...take something with great potential, cripple it (intentionally or otherwise), and overcharge for it.
and 160GB still isn't enough to hold my legally purchased music collection in reasonable lossy resolution. 200 would do it. 160 would work if the damn thing played vorbis or wavpack. it's not that I listen to all of them in 6 months or even a year I just want to have them around in case the urge strikes me for something, or just to have it all on random.
Okay, it looks like the Apple Store will give me me a $200 rebate since I purchased my iPhone less than 14 days ago. I feel bad for all the poor saps who bought their 15+ days ago.
I'm tempted to use my $200 bounty toward the purchase of a 80 GB iPod Classic, but I think I'll restrain myself for now.
manamana, it would not be the same price, there are a lot more components in the ipod touch. it would also be A LOT thicker... you cant compare it to the ipod classic because it doesnt have the extra components such as wifi, touch sensors, etc. To keep it slim (and if it wasnt slim people would complain about its heft), they used flash drives (which is most likely what all ipods will use eventually as cost continues to go down). Its form vs function.
for a 200gb mp3 player, maybe you can get this, if all you care about is holding your 10000000000 songs Fancy
Apple always does this, they put out high end features early even when the first round of hardware is still just barely too wimpy to make the most of it. Just after they came out with imovie, I got a new ibook, and soon found out that processing the video took forever and ate up all the hard drive space quick, too.
In two years the iphone will be awesome, but they're trying to phase in the solid state memory along with everything else and it's just not quite practical yet.
I'm not comparing it to the ipod classic, I'm comparing it to the 16 GB ipod touch. Flash is about 10-12x more expensive per GB than a HD...the price would be the same. ($400)
the 160GB ipod classic is 13.5mm thick. that's with a 9mm thick HD. The ipod touch is 8mm thick. I can't imagine an extra circuit board would take up more than a few mm. I'd be fine with 16mm thick. You also lose the components and circuitry for the wheel - I doubt it'd even be 16.
Oh yeah, I'm sure your back-of-envelope calcs are more accurate than Ive's. You should get in touch with him right away and let him know he's made a horrible mistake.
;)
i'm just hoping some brilliant person ( i'm looking at you, google ) will develop an app so that i can use safari to log onto skype, and then use skype to call said brilliant person. as long as i'm in a wifi zone, its almost as good as an iphone. i recognize the quality will be poor, but no contract with att is a great tradeoff.
The Fifth Avenue Apple Store gave me a $200 rebate, no questions asked. That makes my iPhone about $50 cheaper than the Razr phone I bought a couple years ago, which now seems like a fossil by comparison.
FYI, you can also use one of AT&T's Pay-As-You-Go prepaid plans with the iPhone. No credit check and no contract, and in my case, the monthly cost came out to about the same as the regular rate plan I was considering.
to everyone bitchin about the 16gb flash drive in the iTouch: it would not only need to be thicker with the 160gb (actual spinning) hard drive to fit all the other components in, but the touchscreen also uses way more power than a regular iPod and thus basically needs a flash-based hard drive (which for now can't economically be bigger than 16gb, though it will surely be 32gb or so in the next generation...)
New iPod...Sept. 5th?
beefeaters.
i just feel like there's going to be a version with far more
memory coming down the pike...i'd love the touch if i could
store everything on it...
Ditto.
sure there will be, there will always be one down the line with more memory, etc. just have to decide when you want to buy it
Ack! I bought a 4GB model, and it's actually $200 cheaper. The Apple online store is selling the remaining 4GB iPhones for $299.
a 160 GB ipod touch would be the same price if it used a hard drive.
what the hell is the point of the big screen if you can't put movies on it? they rolled out their media device and kicked it in the nuts before it even got to stand up.
way to go, apple. They're really turning into microsoft...take something with great potential, cripple it (intentionally or otherwise), and overcharge for it.
and 160GB still isn't enough to hold my legally purchased music collection in reasonable lossy resolution. 200 would do it. 160 would work if the damn thing played vorbis or wavpack. it's not that I listen to all of them in 6 months or even a year I just want to have them around in case the urge strikes me for something, or just to have it all on random.
Okay, it looks like the Apple Store will give me me a $200 rebate since I purchased my iPhone less than 14 days ago. I feel bad for all the poor saps who bought their 15+ days ago.
I'm tempted to use my $200 bounty toward the purchase of a 80 GB iPod Classic, but I think I'll restrain myself for now.
manamana, it would not be the same price, there are a lot more components in the ipod touch. it would also be A LOT thicker... you cant compare it to the ipod classic because it doesnt have the extra components such as wifi, touch sensors, etc. To keep it slim (and if it wasnt slim people would complain about its heft), they used flash drives (which is most likely what all ipods will use eventually as cost continues to go down). Its form vs function.
for a 200gb mp3 player, maybe you can get this, if all you care about is holding your 10000000000 songs Fancy
Apple always does this, they put out high end features early even when the first round of hardware is still just barely too wimpy to make the most of it. Just after they came out with imovie, I got a new ibook, and soon found out that processing the video took forever and ate up all the hard drive space quick, too.
In two years the iphone will be awesome, but they're trying to phase in the solid state memory along with everything else and it's just not quite practical yet.
I'm not comparing it to the ipod classic, I'm comparing it to the 16 GB ipod touch. Flash is about 10-12x more expensive per GB than a HD...the price would be the same. ($400)
the 160GB ipod classic is 13.5mm thick. that's with a 9mm thick HD. The ipod touch is 8mm thick. I can't imagine an extra circuit board would take up more than a few mm. I'd be fine with 16mm thick. You also lose the components and circuitry for the wheel - I doubt it'd even be 16.
Oh yeah, I'm sure your back-of-envelope calcs are more accurate than Ive's. You should get in touch with him right away and let him know he's made a horrible mistake.
;)
i'm just hoping some brilliant person ( i'm looking at you, google ) will develop an app so that i can use safari to log onto skype, and then use skype to call said brilliant person. as long as i'm in a wifi zone, its almost as good as an iphone. i recognize the quality will be poor, but no contract with att is a great tradeoff.
The Fifth Avenue Apple Store gave me a $200 rebate, no questions asked. That makes my iPhone about $50 cheaper than the Razr phone I bought a couple years ago, which now seems like a fossil by comparison.
FYI, you can also use one of AT&T's Pay-As-You-Go prepaid plans with the iPhone. No credit check and no contract, and in my case, the monthly cost came out to about the same as the regular rate plan I was considering.
to everyone bitchin about the 16gb flash drive in the iTouch: it would not only need to be thicker with the 160gb (actual spinning) hard drive to fit all the other components in, but the touchscreen also uses way more power than a regular iPod and thus basically needs a flash-based hard drive (which for now can't economically be bigger than 16gb, though it will surely be 32gb or so in the next generation...)
I'm fairly certain I've read that the touchscreen was a minimal power increase over the normal screen + clickwheel. got a link claiming otherwise?
whatever the thickness, cost, or weight argument, 16 GB in a media player is idiotic, period.
touch screen this ;)
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2007/08/bjork_reacTable
a friend of mine's father is working on developing a cel phone which can project HD video on a wall (like a projection TV)
mdler - 720p or 1080i?
been developing this software application for a couple of months now - would love feedback :)
www.designerpages.com/beta ; invitation code: shop
looks like a 37signals knockoff.
as handy as something like that might be, I doubt you'll ever get enough supplier users to make it truly practical
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.