[QUOTE="sgac"][QUOTE="Large_Soda"][QUOTE="creekfan_basic"]I was joking..I also find the touch ipods to be way over priced..sure, the touch screen is nice and all but it doens't make the music or video betterLarge_Soda
Well no one expects a touch screen to enhance music. That doesn't make ANY sense. The touch screen does help the video as it allow for no buttons on the device thus allowing for a bigger screen.
This complaining doesn't make much sense? If you don't think 8GB or 16GB is enough space then get the Classic version, or if you want something smaller then get the Nano. Heaven forbid a company would release products for different people.
Large solid state storage is expensive right now so adding more would drive up the cost of the device. Of course there will be larger ones down the road, that is to be expected, but for now just get something else.
A 160Gb Touch for $400? Riiiiight. Find me a solid state drive that big.
OK don't take it the wrong way I wasn't saying the Touch was crap or anything I just felt like something to have a good old arguement about I think it's an extraurdinary machine. But your also missing the point, why release a product so revolutionary and hamper it with tiny amounts of storage? Alright I know Solid state discs are very expensive but, for a product solely aimed at music storage and Apple knowing people want touch screen and all that, couldn't they have just used a normal mechanical Hard drive until such times as solid state becomes more affordable? It's just the price that get's me, 200 quid for what is basically a iPod nano with a fancy screen, the same applies to the iPhone, why even bother to trumpet music capabilities when even half most peoples music collection wouldn't fit on it
The product is not solely aimed at music storage, the iPod ****c is geared to the person that wants their entire collection in their pocket. The Touch is meant for music, movies, web surfing and photos.
Yes I would agree that more storage would be nice, but that's the way every product gets released. The 360 launched with a 20GB drive now they have a 120GB, the PS3 has had varying sizes of HDDs and the iPods are no different. They need to sell the device at an inflated price to help defer the money spent in developing the unit and then over time they revise it and improve it and by that time solid state storage will be more affordable and you will be getting 32GB drives. Just now there is a 160GB iPod, why didn't that come out 5 years ago?
I'm guessing the idea of a HDD based Touch would be a lot thicker than they would want it and maybe there is a technical reason they couldn't do it with a spinning HDD, I don't know.
There aren't 16GB Nanos available now and the Touch is much more than a Nano with a bigger screen, but it's not aimed at people that want their entire music library with them at all times.
I used to have a 4GB iPod Mini and I was never happy that I couldn't carry my entire library, then I got a 30B Video iPod, loved it, but realized I only listened to a small percentage of my library and now I have the 16GB Touch and I pick and choose what I put on it.
Plain and simple there is an iPod, or Zune or Zen or iRiver for everyone.
Fair enough I can see where you're coming from but Apple makes the ****c iPod 160GB for Movies Music etc, true they don't have Web browsing like the touch but why not try doing HD Storage? I doubt there's a technical reason for it, thicker would be preferable to me as I like sturdy feeling players. Apple reckoned they only sold about half the quantity of iPhones in the UK that they were expecting to sell , I wonder why eh. True saying that all products start like that but cummon Apple try regular HD storage for now, and maybe you'll sell more units. In my experience I have a 5th generation 30GB iPod video and I believe it's spinning HD for storage. I haven't experienced any skipping at all.
Log in to comment