[Yonzie]

120GB iPod Classic is a definite no go.
Apple does not decrease numbers on things they sell. They always go up (OK, it's happened, but it's very, very rare and is only done for good reasons. (iPod Mini>Nano and iMac G5>Intel))
Zune 3 is coming out at 120GB and $249. Why should apple copy Microsofts move? Make it 160GB at $249 and move the goalposts for Microsoft for the third year in a row. 80GB might be kept at maybe $200 though (it's slimmer).
AFAIK, there's no 1.8" drives at >160GB, which puts a pretty good cap on the possibilities.

Or... Apple makes a "product transition" to all-flash iPods...

[dmegatool]

Originally Posted by Yonzie Or... Apple makes a "product transition" to all-flash iPods...

That would mean that classic is gone. It's only there cause of the HD capacity. I would love that transition but I'm not sure Apple is ready to offer a Touch with a sufficient space.

[Satchmo]

Originally Posted by Roboman I think the public never really considered the shape of the 3G nano to be as attractive as the shape of the 1G/2G, and I think the public didn't really like the lighter pastel colors, either. And it showed. Sales weren't "bad" - this is still the iPod nano we're talking about - but they were down a bit from the previous iPod nano, I'm almost sure of it. Part of that might be because everybody and their mom already has an iPod, but it might be because few really fell in love with the 3G iPod nano, too.

I agree. The 2G Nano form factor allows you to hold it comfortably in the palm of your hand and use the scroll wheel. The Fat Nano was awkward in looks and usability. You pretty much had to hold it with your fingers at the same time trying to navigate. This made for a less than steady grip.

I would chalk the 3G Nano as one of those bastard child models like the 3G iPod Classic with the four buttons running across the top.

[Bryson]

I started a new thread because I like Polls....

[AWR]

New iPod Classic will have a BIG screen, possibly getting rid of the wheel. And iPhone with TomTom for "real" GPS functionality. That's my speculation. Sorry it's so lame.

[Kusakun]

Hey. What about a 64 gb iPod Touch? Is it possible or not? I mean... Its about time...

[PB PM]

It will cost only $899.

[Kusakun]

I would pay 499 or 599 for that. If they dont increase the storage room in iPod Touch for me it doesnt make any sense to release another one tomorrow. Unless it costs 300 dollars

[PB PM]

64GB SSDs still cost too much. The drives themselves still cost $499.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by PB PM 64GB SSDs still cost too much. The drives themselves still cost $499.

I bet Apple could get a slight price break if they ordered a million of them.

[PB PM]

Even then, once Apple does its usual markups on hardware, you are looking at it costing at least $100-200 more than the 32GB model, so you are looking at $600+.

[spotcatbug]

I know it's all binary and such, but does every increase in capacity have to be a doubling of the previous level? My old Atari 800 only had 48K in it. It went, 16K then 32K then 48K. Not 16K then 32K then 64K. You can put 3GBs into a PC (three 1GB dimms).

Why can't Apple go from 32GBs to "only" 48GBs instead of all the way to the next power of two (64) GBs? Just add another 16GBs instead of another 32GBs. Yeah, you'd need to make it able to address above 32GBs, but at least your not paying for the extra 16GBs in the top quarter of the address space.

[PB PM]

You could, but none of the SSD producers sell 48GB drives, which would make it rather hard to get. Its more to do with SSD chip sizes. Which I believe are 2GB, 4GB and 8GB (16GB?) at this time. Its possible, but doesn't seem to be the way the industry is going. They could do it, with six 8GB chips, but I doubt we'll see one in that size.

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by PB PM You could, but none of the SSD producers sell 48GB drives, which would make it rather hard to get. Its more to do with SSD chip sizes. Which I believe are 2GB, 4GB and 8GB (16GB?) at this time. Its possible, but doesn't seem to be the way the industry is going. They could do it, with six 8GB chips, but I doubt we'll see one in that size.

Umm... three 16GB chips is cheaper than four 16GB chips (also, six 8GB chips is cheaper than eight 8GB chips). Not to mention saving space as well.

Or... oh, maybe I see. Apple isn't just plopping flash into the case somewhere, they're buying SSDs which don't come in "odd" sizes. Is that it?

Although, that still begs the question: why wouldn't SSD producers make a 48GB SSD?

[PB PM]

I think the reason manufactures sometimes go with smaller chips is that as chip size increases, you get performance hits.

As for the question: I don't think anyone can answer that question other than the drive makers themselves. The real question is, why do you want a 48GB drive rather than 64GB drive?

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by PB PM The real question is, why do you want a 48GB drive rather than 64GB drive?

Because it would be cheaper.

In discussing a possible capacity increase for the Touch, people were saying it would cost too much to have a 64GB Touch (look above). I was questioning the assumption that Apple would necessarily have to go from 32GBs to 64GBs. 48GBs, I figured, wouldn't be as much of a price increase, but would still be a pretty good capacity bump. That made me wonder why Apple couldn't do 48GBs. Why is it always a doubling of capacity?

[PB PM]

Price is an issue, but I wonder if its worth while for Apple to increase the size of the touch. Most of the people I know who got touches have the 8 or 16GB model, even the 32GB is too much for many. Unless the 16GB model falls to the 8GB price, and the 32GB falling to the 16GB price, I cannot see I higher end model selling very well.

As for why drive sizes I don't think anyone here can say. Doubling at least makes a buyer feel like they are getting a lot more for their money, I think its a mindset founded by RAM manufactures, who did the same thing.

[artesc]

but this takes us back to where we were before. we have vast and endless pit of the classic iPods with their never ending hard drives (seriously, who would ever carry 160 gb of music) so we don't "need" any more memory in those. however, the ipod touch would actually benefit from more memory since it has a bigger screen for watching movies, shows etc plus you have all the glory of the app store plus your music. if anything, the iPod touches should increase in capacity and they should just get rid of the classic. it is nearing the end of its life anyways. the nano is for portability, the touch (were it to move up to 64 gb) is for all your library and where is the classic left? nobody knows.

[spotcatbug]

What about a hard-drive-based Touch?

[artesc]

Originally Posted by spotcatbug What about a hard-drive-based Touch?

i actually think that is a distinct possibility. job's big news is that they are getting rid of their flagship ipod, the classic that has been with them all these years in order to advance the user experience and touch technology and all that. of course, if they do that they will need to increase the capacity of the touch, they could have a hdd based option so that it wouldn't cost $800 dollars. then, it would only be matter of time before they got rid of the nano in lieu of a nanotouch. and for those people who absolutely need the tactile controls to "use it in their pocket" or "without looking" there would be the 4 and 8 gb shuffle (after all, if you really need it to use in your pocket or without looking, then you don't need a screen, do you?)

my guess at least.

[kieran]

I would imagine that the software would be extremely sluggish with a HDD Touch.

The Classic can barely run the software on there at times. Coverflow lags and it's slow at times.

Maybe Apple has refined OS X Mobile enough to run on a HDD Touch

[artesc]

maybe they're just going to take a hit and keep a 64 gb touch at a resonable (400-500) price. maybe even lower to have some market penetration. at my school i hardly see anyone with touches.

[wecallitfall]

a 64GB touch would be nice, but as has been said i think the flash drives are still too expensive

i just wonder what will happen if the iPod touch 2.1 software is big enough to make Apple have to charge for it again because of the accounting model, surely they cant keep making touch users fork out £5 here, £12 there?

[Yonzie]

Originally Posted by spotcatbug Or... oh, maybe I see. Apple isn't just plopping flash into the case somewhere, they're buying SSDs which don't come in "odd" sizes. Is that it?

No. Apple buys chips.

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by Yonzie No. Apple buys chips.

Well then, I really don't see why Apple couldn't do a 48GB Touch to keep the price more reasonable. Three 16GB chips.

[Yontsey]

What time does the event start today?

[Fahrenheit]

Its 8:36AM where you are now? In about 4 and a half hours. 1PM your time I think.... :S

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by Yontsey What time does the event start today?

1000PST, which is 1100MST, 1200CST, 1300EST, 1800GMT, 1900CET ...

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by artesc [snip] (seriously, who would ever carry 160 gb of music) [snip]

If I had a 160GB iPod, I'd carry that much in music, and I'd still be leaving music at home. I hate having to choose which 6GB of music to put on my iPhone. It sucks to have a thousand songs in my pocket but not want to listen to any of them because I'm really in the mood for X, but it isn't on my phone.

[Yontsey]

Originally Posted by Farenheit Its 8:36AM where you are now? In about 4 and a half hours. 1PM your time I think.... :S

Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend 1000PST, which is 1100MST, 1200CST, 1300EST, 1800GMT, 1900CET ...

Thank you

I should have mentioned I was EST.