Cancelled my Touch order

GO TO ADMIN PANEL > ADD-ONS AND INSTALL VERTIFORO SIDEBAR TO SEE FORUMS AND SIDEBAR

Gunner

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2003
Messages
363
Points
0
Age
48
yacoub said:
Considering Sandisk's new Sansa media player with 16GB will be priced at $199, I would guess $299 or $399 for a 32GB model before the end of the year would be an appropriate price.
And considering Apple has neutered the PDA functionality, they really have little reason to charge TWICE as much.
You are comparing apples and oranges and you know it. The Sansa has a tiny 1.8" TFT display and no touch capabilities.

And no wifi.

And no Safari (or any other) web browser.

The cost of the memory in a device is only part of the overall cost. The cost of the display/motion sensors, etc, in the Touch probably cost as much as the flash memory.
 

yacoub

New member
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
191
Points
0
That's the old Sansa. The new Sansa has a 2.5" display (maybe bigger, i forget).

And having wifi and a browser is barely worth a darn, sorry. Especially when they neuter everything else that would make wifi worthwhile. :rolleyes:
 

muffinmanAZ

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
17
Points
0
yacoub said:
That's the old Sansa. The new Sansa has a 2.5" display (maybe bigger, i forget).

And having wifi and a browser is barely worth a darn, sorry. Especially when they neuter everything else that would make wifi worthwhile. :rolleyes:
Uh yeah, but he wasn't talking about personal worth. Just because Wifi and the included software aren't "worth a darn" to you doesn't mean they don't have real-life production costs.

There's also a big cost difference between a 2.5" TFT and a 3.5" glass touch-screen.
 

toothpaste

New member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
3,585
Points
0
Location
New York City
Dogenzaka said:
Um, you can't disagree that a 160GB HDD on the iPod touch NOW, and then when flash drives become cheaper and in higher capacity, THEN it would be a smart move to move to them. But not now. They're too costly and low-capacity.
Flash drive technology is what enables the ipod to be so thin. Capacity is not on everyone's list of priorities. The ipod line is varied enough that everyone can have an ipod that suits their needs. Want space? Get a 160gb classic. Want the touch for the capabilities that are offered? You have to sacrifice storage space.

HDD are the reasons people send their ipods back because of HDD failure and crashes. In time all HDD ipods will be phased out in favor of flash technology. New technology always costs more than current technology at a much higher gb/price point, this gives the complainers something to complain about. This is the way that technology works. Be happy to own an ipod so you can listen to your music instead of carrying a cd player around.:rolleyes:
 

Gunner

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2003
Messages
363
Points
0
Age
48
yacoub said:
That's the old Sansa. The new Sansa has a 2.5" display (maybe bigger, i forget).

And having wifi and a browser is barely worth a darn, sorry. Especially when they neuter everything else that would make wifi worthwhile. :rolleyes:
Gee, I can think of a helluva lot of things I can do with Safari and Wifi.

Like check my email from a web page, read the news in a coffee shop without having to bust out my laptop, etc.

Just because the feature is valueless to you does not mean that everyone else feels the same way.

I think you should run out and get that Sansa.... yup... :p Enjoy trying to manage your library on 16GB without smart playlist capabilities.
 

ANDS

New member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
82
Points
0
Apple just loses customers who don't want an iPhone but want a media player with PDA elements included.
Sorry - they aren't in the majority.

Especially when they neuter everything else that would make wifi worthwhile.
Just because you use the eyeroll smile, doesn't add any more weight to your post. WiFi capability is a nice SUPPLIMENT to the media player; just like video was a nice addition to the 5G iPods. If you want a full featured PDA - then go pay for it. Complaining that an audio device doesn't do everything YOU want it to do is hilariously silly.
 

kyussmondo

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
866
Points
0
Location
Ipswich, UK
And judging by the huge success of the Nano, the majority of people do not need a huge capacity iPod. Most people are able to put their best music into 16GB, unless you have 160GB of music which every single song is so great that you need to carry around 160GB of music.

People have different needs.
 

Gunner

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2003
Messages
363
Points
0
Age
48
slashjunior said:
And judging by the huge success of the Nano, the majority of people do not need a huge capacity iPod. Most people are able to put their best music into 16GB, unless you have 160GB of music which every single song is so great that you need to carry around 160GB of music.

People have different needs.
Admittedly I can see people who listen to their iPod for 4-8 hours or more a day wanting more than 16GB of capacity, you'd eventually start to hear the same tracks repeating quite often.

Additionally 'album lovers' (that vanishing breed) will want to search for just the right music for how they are feeling at any time.

Many of us can 'make do' with less space though. You can fit hundreds of albums or thousands of tracks on 16GB and still have some room left over for movies/photos/etc.
 

Dogenzaka

New member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
182
Points
0
For all we know they made hard drive based Touch prototypes and weren't satisfied with them for any number of reasons, not least of which would be the much poorer battery life that a hard drive based unit would get even if it was physically larger.
Right. That's why the 160GB iPod classic has a higher battery life than the touch?
>_>

You guys are so damn angry about this that it's kind of amusing.
look who's talking.

Apple didn't give you your perfect media device so you're going to bash it every chance you get.
We have a right to discuss things we would like to see about the iPod touch, positive or negative, without your bashing or flaming back, period.

You're kind of talking out of your ### here since you don't know what Apple's decision making process was when figuring this out.
Really? All I've been hearing is "becuz fla$h is deh f00chur". So what? That doesn't mean you use it in your devices when all you can get its 8GB and 16GB of storage out of it.

You're too wrapped up in being an Apple fan to realize they might have made a mistake, but instead, you say "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THINKING THEY DID IT FOR THE BEST OF THE PRODUCT ALL HAIL APPLE" and bash us for thinking otherwise.


Uh yeah, but he wasn't talking about personal worth. Just because Wifi and the included software aren't "worth a darn" to you doesn't mean they don't have real-life production costs.

There's also a big cost difference between a 2.5" TFT and a 3.5" glass touch-screen.
Excuse me? The size of the screen has nothing to do with the cost of Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi is dirt cheap to build in now. If Nintendo DS's for just $130 and two screens and a touch screen implement them and they make a huge profit off of them, you should know Wi-Fi is pretty cheap to build in. And, a web browser doesn't count as "costs", it's a software, and a free one at that, that they just borrowed from the iPhone.
 
Last edited:

Johnny Alien

New member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
191
Points
0
jmpage2 said:
Admittedly I can see people who listen to their iPod for 4-8 hours or more a day wanting more than 16GB of capacity, you'd eventually start to hear the same tracks repeating quite often.

Additionally 'album lovers' (that vanishing breed) will want to search for just the right music for how they are feeling at any time.

Many of us can 'make do' with less space though. You can fit hundreds of albums or thousands of tracks on 16GB and still have some room left over for movies/photos/etc.

Really? You think that listening to the iPod for 4-8 hours a day with 16 gig will yield repeated tracks? I listen to my album all day from my car ride into work to the car ride back. Let's say roughly 5 hours a day and I listen to maybe 5 or 6 albums. In preparation for the touch I created a playlist and stuck my essentials in it (what I listen to all the time). I set up 8 gigs so far and it has 200 albums. That is enough for me to go almost three weeks without listening to an album twice and listening most of the day plus I have room left over for some shows, movies and podcasts. It's called music management. It took me awhile to realize that I don't need to take everything with me all the time.

I also don't understand how that is not enough for a trip either. I realize syncing alot is a pain but once every other week is no bog deal to me.

Let's face it music and video collections continue to grow and the portable units will not always keep up and I think it's silly to think they need to. Some people will always have the desire or need to take a ton of stuff with them and if they want to buy an iPod then there is a model for them. The reason why Apple won't start with HDD is because HDD will always be ahead of flash. So what if they went with the 80 gig and 160 gig drive. Would you be happy when they dropped to 32 gig next year? How about if they stuck with HDD until the smallest drive were 160 and the max over 200. Would you be happy when they dropped to 64 and those mega drives were available? By sticking with flash from the start they never have to face that mega drop backwards.
 

Dogenzaka

New member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
182
Points
0
And judging by the huge success of the Nano, the majority of people do not need a huge capacity iPod. Most people are able to put their best music into 16GB, unless you have 160GB of music which every single song is so great that you need to carry around 160GB of music.

People have different needs.
In my personal case, the only people who own Nanos that I know are people who can't afford the regular iPod, so I think it's just a cheaper iPod solution that makes the iPod available to everyone. That's just my take on it though.

And Johnny Alien, personally, there's nothing that annoys me more on a vacation than looking for a certain song and remembering I couldn't fit it in my iPod so I sacrificed it for another one. :(
 

Johnny Alien

New member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
191
Points
0
Dogenzaka said:
Right. That's why the 160GB iPod classic has a higher battery life than the touch?
>_>

Two compeletely different units running different software with different hardware.

Dogenzaka said:
We have a right to discuss things we would like to see about the iPod touch, positive or negative, without your bashing or flaming back, period.
You have started threads here to do nothing but freak out. You are ####ed you didn't get what you wanted. Move on...buy something else. Ranting on the internet is doing nothing but making you look like a crybaby. It's an ipod...not the end of the world.

Dogenzaka said:
Really? All I've been hearing is "becuz fla$h is deh f00chur". So what? That doesn't mean you use it in your devices when all you can get its 8GB and 16GB of storage out of it.

You're too wrapped up in being an Apple fan to realize they might have made a mistake, but instead, you say "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THINKING THEY DID IT FOR THE BEST OF THE PRODUCT ALL HAIL APPLE" and bash us for thinking otherwise.
It's an MP3 player dude calm down. You called me a fanboy before as well. It seems like you think that anyone not as ####ed as you are is blinded by Apple love. Totally not the truth. I would have liked to see a larger drive too but since I like the UI I will make it work for me. So stop the little insults (and stop pretending you are not implying them to be such) and start realizing that there are other choices out there for you.

And yes there could be a ton of unknown reasons why flash made more sense than HDD over and above the battery life. No one knows and to be honest since Apple won't change their mind it's hardly worth discussing.
 

Dogenzaka

New member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
182
Points
0
It's an MP3 player dude calm down.
That was 2001. It's a media player now. Get it right.

You called me a fanboy before as well.
Your point?

. It seems like you think that anyone not as ####ed as you are is blinded by Apple love. Totally not the truth.
It's simply that everyone I ask about why they put flash in there seem to answer me with "IT'S THE FUTURE. DENY THIS AND YOU SUCK."

I would have liked to see a larger drive too but since I like the UI I will make it work for me.
Same here.

You have started threads here to do nothing but freak out.
Unless you're a mindreader, you have no basis to your judgment of my motives.

You are ####ed you didn't get what you wanted. Move on...buy something else.
Name another touchscreen widescreen media player and I'd be glad to.

Ranting on the internet is doing nothing but making you look like a crybaby.
Just like you are? I have the right to express my opinion on the new iPod, just like the other "ranters". YOU get over it.

So stop the little insults (and stop pretending you are not implying them to be such)
Once again, logically, you're not a mindreader, therefore cannot prove what I'm "thinking/implying/motives" are. I'm not insulting. You're the one bypassing the word filter. It seems to me you're the one in trouble.

And yes there could be a ton of unknown reasons why flash made more sense than HDD over and above the battery life. No one knows and to be honest since Apple won't change their mind it's hardly worth discussing.
The difference between a $300 iPod touch with 8GB and a $250 iPod classic with 80GB is highly worth discussing.
 

Code Monkey

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
5,213
Points
0
Location
Midstate New York
slashjunior said:
...Most people are able to put their best music into 16GB, unless you have 160GB of music which every single song is so great that you need to carry around 160GB of music.
With the appended clause: "... which every single song is so great that you need to carry around 160GB of music and you only sync your iPod once every two years".

I do have that much music, and based on play data, it takes close to two years to completely rotate through all that music. I just use an 8GB nano and let smartlists handle the song rotation. And to follow up on another comment by another poster, I have gone on week+ long trips, listened 4 to 8 hours a day, and repeated nothing whatsoever with just 8GB - I don't see the capacity of the touch as an issue in any meaningful way. On the other hand, the choice to actively not support features that arguably should be present given that it's little more than an iPhone minus the phone, IS disturbing.
 

Gunner

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2003
Messages
363
Points
0
Age
48
Johnny Alien said:
Really? You think that listening to the iPod for 4-8 hours a day with 16 gig will yield repeated tracks? I listen to my album all day from my car ride into work to the car ride back. Let's say roughly 5 hours a day and I listen to maybe 5 or 6 albums. In preparation for the touch I created a playlist and stuck my essentials in it (what I listen to all the time). I set up 8 gigs so far and it has 200 albums. That is enough for me to go almost three weeks without listening to an album twice and listening most of the day plus I have room left over for some shows, movies and podcasts. It's called music management. It took me awhile to realize that I don't need to take everything with me all the time.

I also don't understand how that is not enough for a trip either. I realize syncing alot is a pain but once every other week is no bog deal to me.

Let's face it music and video collections continue to grow and the portable units will not always keep up and I think it's silly to think they need to. Some people will always have the desire or need to take a ton of stuff with them and if they want to buy an iPod then there is a model for them. The reason why Apple won't start with HDD is because HDD will always be ahead of flash. So what if they went with the 80 gig and 160 gig drive. Would you be happy when they dropped to 32 gig next year? How about if they stuck with HDD until the smallest drive were 160 and the max over 200. Would you be happy when they dropped to 64 and those mega drives were available? By sticking with flash from the start they never have to face that mega drop backwards.
Well, my collection is about 125 hours worth in the 12GB that I mentioned. Soo, on any day if I listened for 4 hours there would be about a 1% chance of a repeat. Not too shabby, but if I listened for 12 hours a day I guess I could see wanting a little more music.

Really though it's no trouble to make some changes to the playlist every week or three. I agree, I think people get a little too wrapped up in all of this. If 16GB doesn't cut it for you then pass on the Touch and get over it already! :D
 

Gunner

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2003
Messages
363
Points
0
Age
48
Dogenzaka said:
That was 2001. It's a media player now. Get it right.
Your point?
That you are lashing out instead of doing anything constructive here? You hate the touch and Apple's decisions with it, we get it, please, move on since all you are doing here is bashing.

It's simply that everyone I ask about why they put flash in there seem to answer me with "IT'S THE FUTURE. DENY THIS AND YOU SUCK."
There are NUMEROUS reasons that Apple might have gone with flash. Battery life, shielding of the components from noise (many hard drive based ipods exhibit a certain amount of noise induction from the hard drive itself), size, weight, etc, etc, etc. Are those not reasons? You are just B!tching for the sake of it.


Unless you're a mindreader, you have no basis to your judgment of my motives.
but you are entitled to call everyone who doesn't agree with you an Apple fan boy? For the record (since you called me a fan boy) the iPod is the only piece of Apple gear I have ever owned. In my opinion they make the best DAPs but I'm always open to what else is out there. Come to think of it, maybe you should go buy a Zune.


Name another touchscreen widescreen media player and I'd be glad to.
How is this Apple's fault? Because they didn't build EXACTLY what you wanted? Christ, deal with it.


Just like you are? I have the right to express my opinion on the new iPod, just like the other "ranters". YOU get over it.
Well, when I see that look of envy on my next flight while I enjoy my shiny new iPod Touch, watching a film or listening to some tunes, I'll know that you are just happy that you aren't strangled with a 16GB capacity limit.


The difference between a $300 iPod touch with 8GB and a $250 iPod classic with 80GB is highly worth discussing.
It has been discussed, to death. Ilounge even did an article on the Classic and how it compares to the media experience on the iphone/touch. If the benefits of the touch aren't worth the capacity limit, then don't buy it.

We've heard your opinion on this, like 100 times. Maybe those of us ordering the device can have a discussion now about how to organize our media and enjoy our new toy.
 

kyussmondo

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
866
Points
0
Location
Ipswich, UK
Code Monkey said:
With the appended clause: "... which every single song is so great that you need to carry around 160GB of music and you only sync your iPod once every two years".

I do have that much music, and based on play data, it takes close to two years to completely rotate through all that music. I just use an 8GB nano and let smartlists handle the song rotation. And to follow up on another comment by another poster, I have gone on week+ long trips, listened 4 to 8 hours a day, and repeated nothing whatsoever with just 8GB - I don't see the capacity of the touch as an issue in any meaningful way. On the other hand, the choice to actively not support features that arguably should be present given that it's little more than an iPhone minus the phone, IS disturbing.
I am not disagreeing with you. Infact I agree with you. If people manage their music with playlists and smart playlists then it is pretty simple to last with 8GB or 16GB. It is not a big chore just dropping things in and out of a playlist. All you have to do then is plug the iPod in and it will sync the updated playlist.

On an average week of listening to 16GB's of music I doubt you would hear the same song twice. I am seriously thinking about getting a Touch, or I maybe patient and wait for the 16GB iPhone.
 

Gunner

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2003
Messages
363
Points
0
Age
48
slashjunior said:
I am not disagreeing with you. Infact I agree with you. If people manage their music with playlists and smart playlists then it is pretty simple to last with 8GB or 16GB. It is not a big chore just dropping things in and out of a playlist. All you have to do then is plug the iPod in and it will sync the updated playlist.

On an average week of listening to 16GB's of music I doubt you would hear the same song twice. I am seriously thinking about getting a Touch, or I maybe patient and wait for the 16GB iPhone.
16GB of music would be about 180 hours, so it would almost be impossible to listen to it in a week unless you were listening for over 20 hours per week.

It's really a LOT of music. Won't work for everybody but the whole 'OMG, I can't take that Queen CD I haven't listened to in 4 years with me' is getting a bit old.
 

Dogenzaka

New member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
182
Points
0
That you are lashing out instead of doing anything constructive here? You hate the touch and Apple's decisions with it, we get it, please, move on since all you are doing here is bashing.
Currently, I'm upset with YOU, and I'm not bashing Apple's product. Point to me once where I said "iPod touch sucks" or of the sort. No, I said they could have made different decisions, and I stand by that, and I have the RIGHT to discuss whatever I feel like on the matter whether your opinion collides with mine or not. YOU move on.

There are NUMEROUS reasons that Apple might have gone with flash. Battery life, shielding of the components from noise (many hard drive based ipods exhibit a certain amount of noise induction from the hard drive itself), size, weight, etc, etc, etc. Are those not reasons? You are just B!tching for the sake of it.
Well then this is the first time I've heard this explanation. Thank you for giving me an explanation other than "it's flash it's the FUTURE!". That's all I was asking for. Is why. I didn't say the iPod was stupid or bash it, I simply asked WHY they made the change. Learn to read. You're the one ____ing with me.

but you are entitled to call everyone who doesn't agree with you an Apple fan boy? For the record (since you called me a fan boy) the iPod is the only piece of Apple gear I have ever owned. In my opinion they make the best DAPs but I'm always open to what else is out there. Come to think of it, maybe you should go buy a Zune.
Everyone? Hardly. I call people who are fans of the company fanboys, and who are unwilling to accept Apple isn't perfect. That would be you.

And no, the Zune is absolutely stupid. The Wi-fi is useless, lack of innovativity and overall easy-to-use UI. It's incomparable to the iPod touch.

How is this Apple's fault? Because they didn't build EXACTLY what you wanted? Christ, deal with it.
Christ, do you READ? Where did I say this was Apple's fault. I simply said point out another touchscreen widescreen device to me that I can buy and I will, until then, I will point out what I don't like about the device, as I am NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO FEELS THIS WAY, and you can either move out of my way or accept that not everyone has your opinion.

LERN2READ.

Well, when I see that look of envy on my next flight while I enjoy my shiny new iPod Touch, watching a film or listening to some tunes, I'll know that you are just happy that you aren't strangled with a 16GB capacity limit.
For your information, I am getting an iPod touch. I'm simply unhappy with the capacity somewhat.

It has been discussed, to death.
I obviously missed out on the party. I have the right to discuss it. Deal with it.


We've heard your opinion on this, like 100 times.
And we've heard yours like 100 times, why are you here?

Maybe those of us ordering the device can have a discussion now about how to organize our media and enjoy our new toy.
In a thread about why someone cancelled their order because of lack of capacity? My God, you really don't have common sense do you?
 
Last edited:

Shameless1

Been around a while
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
274
Points
0
Dogenzaka I got 1 question for you. Are you here to insult and upset people or to carry on a discussion. Because you seem to insult or be rude to anyone that does not agree with you. I have been reading these forums for a while and it's been a while since I have seen someone come on so strong and be so rude for little or no reason at all. Dude take a pill.

Shameless
 
Top