Store stuff on web, not on pod

[suedehead77]

With wi-fi, you store your stuff on the web, not on the pod. Use .mac or your ISP's web hosting service. 16 gb is plenty when you have extra storage on the web.

go ahead, whiners, start whining

[Surf Monkey]

How many times are you going to post the exact same sentence?

Nice that you accuse anyone who disagrees with your assertion a "whiner". That's a great way to invite reasonable discussion.

[suedehead77]

article from Computerworld: touch is a laptop replacement:

"Oh, and for those already whining about that "paltry" 16GB of storage space on the $399 model? Look for the ability to stream media from your home computer/server in the next few months."

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9034940&intsrc=hm_list


How many times are you going to post the exact same sentence?

Nice that you accuse anyone who disagrees with your assertion a "whiner". That's a great way to invite reasonable discussion.

[Pina_p9]

I guess it would work occasionally, but its not worth it. What about on vacation, where there is no wi-fi, or on your car, or on the airplane, etc.

You cant acess your .mac account from any of these places, and its places like these where I wonder what I would do if I didn't have an iPod

[suedehead77]

You guys are totally missing the point. The touch is about the WEB REVOLUTION. It's not about lugging around 80 gig bricks, or laptops. It's about seamlessly connecting to the web anywhere and having all the docs you need at your fingertips, just in time.

Huge hard drives are the DINOSAURS, left over from the old 'desktop age'. Apple should STOP MAKING 80 gig 'pods because they will be completely defunct in a year, replaced by this new web-based paradigm.

I live in Fredericton, New Brunswick, CA which, compared to most North American cities, is a backwater. But it's the first city in Canada to have free city-wide WiFi. If Fredericton can do it, for chrissakes, any other city or town in North America can do the same.

[Jim Shoe]

Great so I can put movies up on my server, then get a MPAA take down notice all on my fancy ipod with wifi!!! Wow what a great idea. Or I could store all my movies on my ipod and carry them with me. Unless solid state storage comes down to $1 a gig, i don't see hard drive leaving any time soon.

[gtompkins48]

That is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. Even if you upload your songs to the internet, you would have to use the Safari browser to access it, which it just much more hassle, plus it includes download times. Also, you would not be able to use the simple features of the iPod, like coverflow, the now-playing interface, and song selection from a list. It is nothing like having the songs on your iPod. Plus, people who live in places with low connectivity (Like half of the US in the desert and in the country) will not be able to use this watered-down feature (even though they probably wouldn't want it)

It's stupid how touch fanboys have to think of all these things to try to excuse the fact that the storage on the touch sucks. I shouldn't have to remove 5/6 of my liabrary or settle for listening to something on a web browser. It's simple, the storage on the touch sucks, and nothing you suggest will be able to replace that.

[suedehead77]

My experience with my 60 Gig 4G is that I only used 15 gig for music, and that was my whole 'favorites' collection. 60 gig was a complete waste of money and space.

After one year the hard drive quit and its now a 60 gig paperweight. Dead.

I wanted the flash drive of the Nano because its rock solid. 8gb wasn't enough to keep me happy but 16 gb was enough to get me in the door, plus a million other apps.

I'd rather have 16 gig that actually works than 120 gig paperweight.

That is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. Even if you upload your songs to the internet, you would have to use the Safari browser to access it, which it just much more hassle, plus it includes download times. Also, you would not be able to use the simple features of the iPod, like coverflow, the now-playing interface, and song selection from a list. It is nothing like having the songs on your iPod. Plus, people who live in places with low connectivity (Like half of the US in the desert and in the country) will not be able to use this watered-down feature (even though they probably wouldn't want it)

It's stupid how touch fanboys have to think of all these things to try to excuse the fact that the storage on the touch sucks. I shouldn't have to remove 5/6 of my liabrary or settle for listening to something on a web browser. It's simple, the storage on the touch sucks, and nothing you suggest will be able to replace that.

[Surf Monkey]

article from Computerworld: touch is a laptop replacement:

"Oh, and for those already whining about that "paltry" 16GB of storage space on the $399 model? Look for the ability to stream media from your home computer/server in the next few months."

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9034940&intsrc=hm_list

So, because that article called people dumb names, that makes it okay for you to do the same? Lame.

[Surf Monkey]

You guys are totally missing the point. The touch is about the WEB REVOLUTION. It's not about lugging around 80 gig bricks, or laptops. It's about seamlessly connecting to the web anywhere and having all the docs you need at your fingertips, just in time.

Huge hard drives are the DINOSAURS, left over from the old 'desktop age'. Apple should STOP MAKING 80 gig 'pods because they will be completely defunct in a year, replaced by this new web-based paradigm.

I live in Fredericton, New Brunswick, CA which, compared to most North American cities, is a backwater. But it's the first city in Canada to have free city-wide WiFi. If Fredericton can do it, for chrissakes, any other city or town in North America can do the same.


Hogwash. The only reason iPod Touch doesn't have a hard drive is that Apple prefers solid state memory in the device. Gives them the ability to make it thin and sexy. Your assertion that "Huge hard drives are DINOSAURS, left over from the old 'desktop age'" is absurd. Reality contradicts you. Large portable storage systems abound. We see more and more of them every day. Watch the capacity of the iPod Touch over the next two years. It'll go up and up and up. No matter how cool it may sound to you, remote storage is never going to completely replace localized storage. There'll always be a combination of the two.

[Surf Monkey]

My experience with my 60 Gig 4G is that I only used 15 gig for music, and that was my whole 'favorites' collection. 60 gig was a complete waste of money and space.


Right. So that's what it comes down to. You're another ####### who thinks he knows exactly how much storage people need, how they should use their iPods and where their files should be. We've been over this subject ad nauseum. No reason to go back into it IMO.

[BlackHawk47]

Great so I can put movies up on my server, then get a MPAA take down notice all on my fancy ipod with wifi!!! Wow what a great idea. Or I could store all my movies on my ipod and carry them with me. Unless solid state storage comes down to $1 a gig, i don't see hard drive leaving any time soon.

Heh. I bought a 320GB External for 100 bucks. Which means it was about 32 cents per gig. That was a good deal!

[suedehead77]

Right. So that's what it comes down to. You're another ####### who thinks he knows exactly how much storage people need, how they should use their iPods and where their files should be. We've been over this subject ad nauseum. No reason to go back into it IMO.

Excuse me, are you totally paranoid? I have no control over how much storage people get in their products. Apple is running the show, not me. I'm just a consumer. Take it easy, bro.

[gtompkins48]

I have hours of video on my iPod, much over 16gb and I'm not going to get a touch because it will not hold everything I have. People tell me I should "put on less stuff" or do this internet crap, but the point is, the storage on the touch sucks, and I'd take the classic over it any day. I don't need/want a touchscreen so much that I'm going to sacrifice most of my liabrary for it. And I am perfectly fine with waiting 5 years until one with a good storage size comes out.

[suedehead77]

I'm starting to realize that the argument is about here. I view the "Touch" as a mobile web device vs. others who view it as an "iPod". Storage is secondary to me; I don't think of it as a media storage and playback device. I'm into all the apps, all the connectivity, the ability to get online anywhere.

I wish they would give it a different name, like 'Touch-mobile' or something. I don't even think of it as an 'iPod' in the conventional sense. I didn't buy it to play back music and videos, although I'm glad it has that capability. I bought it as a potentially revolutionary wi-fi device.

So that's what all this misunderstanding is about.

I have hours of video on my iPod, much over 16gb and I'm not going to get a touch because it will not hold everything I have. People tell me I should "put on less stuff" or do this internet crap, but the point is, the storage on the touch sucks, and I'd take the classic over it any day. I don't need/want a touchscreen so much that I'm going to sacrifice most of my liabrary for it. And I am perfectly fine with waiting 5 years until one with a good storage size comes out.

[hyroboarder]

That's too bad about the 60gb hard drive on your ipod. I know it's a shame apple makes inferior products that break in a year, I mean ipods are what, lower in mp3 player market share than Coby. I have a hard drive thats 11 years old and still works.

[hyroboarder]

It's stupid how touch fanboys have to think of all these things to try to excuse the fact that the storage on the touch sucks. I shouldn't have to remove 5/6 of my liabrary or settle for listening to something on a web browser. It's simple, the storage on the touch sucks, and nothing you suggest will be able to replace that.

The storage on the ipod touch sucks, compared to hard drive players. Obviously. The storage is certainly not bad for flash players, it's a great start for apple because the only thing that will happen is the storage will go up and up and up on flash in the coming years.

[manders4001]

I thought about doing this today. I had been deadset on just getting an iPod classic and waiting till iPod touch suits my storage needs, but I love the touch's interface. I have a lala.com account (stores music on the web for streaming) and was wondering if other people can stream their music through that website with an iPhone, which would obviously be a lot like an iPod touch in the Safari aspect.

[Surf Monkey]

The storage on the ipod touch sucks, compared to hard drive players. Obviously. The storage is certainly not bad for flash players, it's a great start for apple because the only thing that will happen is the storage will go up and up and up on flash in the coming years.


It's not really fair to compare it to other flash players because iPod Touch is positioned more as a video platform than as a flash based music player. It's storage is a huge problem because it's intended as a video centric device but doesn't have enough space to store more than a few videos.

[Surf Monkey]

I'm into all the apps, all the connectivity, the ability to get online anywhere.


Too bad iPod Touch doesn't offer that. You need iPhone to get all those features.

[bobb-mini]

You guys are totally missing the point.
I see your point, although the inmature name calling doesn't help it, as Surf Money mentioned.

BUT, I see that you fell for the ComputerWorld article. By my vast <ahem!> experience, I don't fall for anybody just because they have an article on a magazine.

Notice the article says "potential" for WiFi, he did not, nowhere says he's accessing tunes through his iPhone. Potential and actual are two different things. Zune has WiFi from day#1 and does MS allows u to access wireless tunes willy-nilly? NOPE.

The article also mentions "great for business" and yet u haven't read articles that says lots of companys are, yet, not allowing iPhones on the network? I will let you read further. Plus here, at the iPhone forum, yes right here, don't have to go far, iPhone people still complaint they can't get at their corporate email (imap/exchange).

U focus all your argument in "potential" technology and ignore what companies are willing to make those things available to us. Would be nice though, I give you that.

So.... that's it. Food for thoughts 4u.

[hyroboarder]

It's not really fair to compare it to other flash players because iPod Touch is positioned more as a video platform than as a flash based music player. It's storage is a huge problem because it's intended as a video centric device but doesn't have enough space to store more than a few videos.


I guess that's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that touch isn't skimping out on flash memory. It's not like there's a flash player out there for 300$ with 64 gb of memory. If there was, we would know that apple's prices are too high for the memory installed. I realized it has the screen and all that, and I know 16 is bad for storing videos, but I don't think it's targeted as a mainly video player. I think it's intended as a next gen ipod for multimedia.

[suedehead77]

look, I'm in a scooter forum where all we talk about is how much we love our scooters, how to make them better, how to improve people's experience with scooters.

This forum seems to be dominated by people who do nothing but whine and complain about stuff they don't even own and don't intend to buy. So fine, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

I want to participate in a forum that helps improve my use of the Touch, solve problems, alert me to new software and accessories that expand its capacities. I suspect that might happen when the Touch actually ships and people are actually using it. But if it doesn't, and this continues to be a forum of whiners, I'm not going to waste any more time here.

'nuff said.


I see your point, although the inmature name calling doesn't help it, as Surf Money mentioned.

BUT, I see that you fell for the ComputerWorld article. By my vast <ahem!> experience, I don't fall for anybody just because they have an article on a magazine.

Notice the article says "potential" for WiFi, he did not, nowhere says he's accessing tunes through his iPhone. Potential and actual are two different things. Zune has WiFi from day#1 and does MS allows u to access wireless tunes willy-nilly? NOPE.

The article also mentions "great for business" and yet u haven't read articles that says lots of companys are, yet, not allowing iPhones on the network? I will let you read further. Plus here, at the iPhone forum, yes right here, don't have to go far, iPhone people still complaint they can't get at their corporate email (imap/exchange).

U focus all your argument in "potential" technology and ignore what companies are willing to make those things available to us. Would be nice though, I give you that.

So.... that's it. Food for thoughts 4u.

[Johnny Alien]

It's not really fair to compare it to other flash players because iPod Touch is positioned more as a video platform than as a flash based music player. It's storage is a huge problem because it's intended as a video centric device but doesn't have enough space to store more than a few videos.

Actually all the ipods but the shuffle are video iPods now. IMO the classic is more video-centric because of the capacity. The touch is being sold on it's big screen and UI. Yes the screen would make it nicer for video but it just doesn't have the capacity and I don't see apple pushing it as more video oriented than any o the other models. you just see it that way because of the screen.

I get the being upset to but it is getting tiring seeing post after post of people whining that the touvh doesn't work for them. Make it work or get something else (like you did Mr. Monkey) and let it go. It isn't HDD based it won't be HDD based so if you need more gigs get the classic and quit whining.

Note: This was not specifically geared to you Surf Monkey I was just talking in general. With the iPhone and and classic you have the best of both worlds :)

[Gunner]

I'm starting to realize that the argument is about here. I view the "Touch" as a mobile web device vs. others who view it as an "iPod". Storage is secondary to me; I don't think of it as a media storage and playback device. I'm into all the apps, all the connectivity, the ability to get online anywhere.

I wish they would give it a different name, like 'Touch-mobile' or something. I don't even think of it as an 'iPod' in the conventional sense. I didn't buy it to play back music and videos, although I'm glad it has that capability. I bought it as a potentially revolutionary wi-fi device.

So that's what all this misunderstanding is about.

You seem to have high hopes for additional functionality that may or may not materialize in the near future.

At this point in time it's an ipod with a web browser on it. That's it. There aren't 3rd party applications, IM chat programs, and other things that would make it the device you describe.

And, as others mention, the storage on the device will continue to increase as time goes on. Apple put a small amount of memory in it, not because it's a 'web casting' device or any other hogwash like that. They put the small amount of memory in because they wanted to minimize size, maximize battery life and cut down on warranty repairs.

[suedehead77]

I think we're just at the beginning of this movement toward web-only devices.

I think you're right that subsequent versions will have more functions and capacities, and I look forward to getting an updated version same time next year. I don't mind putting down another $400 for a second or third gen model, because I want to grow with the technology.

But notice, I'm not concerned about expanded storage. That alone is not enough to make me buy future gens. I want more apps and functions, not more gigs.





You seem to have high hopes for additional functionality that may or may not materialize in the near future.

At this point in time it's an ipod with a web browser on it. That's it. There aren't 3rd party applications, IM chat programs, and other things that would make it the device you describe.

And, as others mention, the storage on the device will continue to increase as time goes on. Apple put a small amount of memory in it, not because it's a 'web casting' device or any other hogwash like that. They put the small amount of memory in because they wanted to minimize size, maximize battery life and cut down on warranty repairs.

[bobb-mini]

But notice, I'm not concerned about expanded storage. That alone is not enough to make me buy future gens. I want more apps and functions, not more gigs.
THAT, I agree with.

If ppl are whining as u say 'coz iTouch is "made" for a video-centric machine and videos takes up lotsa space. 16 gig for a video machine... u gotta admit is immediately obviously lacking.

As far as your steadfast wish for a web-only device. I am STILL, after all these years, since iPod-1, wish the iPod had a wireless connection (BT/WIFI as long as it works) and connection to my cars isn't so much hassle as it's STILL now. With an appropriate wireless connection, I can have a massive HD in the car, a GPS receiver etc. Unfortunately, my dream, after all these years hasn't come true. :(

Web-base services is been slow coming despite the potential. At the other post, I made a reference to Larry Ellison predicting the demise of Windows (individualized storage) some 15 years ago. MS still kicking...