iLounge

1

16 GB video iPod?  That seems counter-intuitive to me.  Unless they’re going after a market that just wants to watch short clips captured on a camera phone, home movies, or music videos.  A video nano?  I’m not sure.  I trust that Apple has done its market research if this anaylist’s prediction is true.

Posted by alexarch in Dallas, TX on December 6, 2006 at 8:54 AM (PDT)

2

Well at least it is not Shaw Wu and his dreamtime theatre. Does anyone track these guys to see if they are ever correct?

Posted by Don Trammell on December 6, 2006 at 8:56 AM (PDT)

3

Can someone explain to me (in one paragraph) why flash memory would be better than how the iPod’s memory is now? What benefits would it have? I’m (obviously) naive about this.

Posted by Ian Jackson on December 6, 2006 at 9:07 AM (PDT)

4

In response to Ian:

Flash memory allows the iPods to be smaller, contain less moving parts (more resistent to shock), and use less power (better battery life). 

However, given the supply/demand and new technology curve, flash memory is much more expensive per GB (though it’s come down a lot).

Posted by mmcook on December 6, 2006 at 9:37 AM (PDT)

5

I think there may be too many rumors flying around right now and some may be getting crossed.  Why a 16GB flash video iPod?  Maybe it’s the Nano that’s going to get bumped up in capacity with added video capability.

One movie and a few of TV shows would pretty much fill 16GBs.

Posted by Obadiah on December 6, 2006 at 9:38 AM (PDT)

6

mmcook, thanks for the explanation.

Posted by Ian Jackson on December 6, 2006 at 9:40 AM (PDT)

7

Well, let’s see:

A 2h movie takes about 2G, an hour-long TV show takes about 400K…let’s say the usable RAM is 15G.

You could allocate 5G to music,have 2 full length movies, 6 TV shows, and room left over for podcasts, video podcasts, short You Tube clips, and photos or games.

Seems like a pretty good size to me, but it would have to support video-out through the dock like full size models.

All ipods have their use cases: this one would combine small size and good battery and lower cost to make a daily ipod or workout ipod with sportkit integration or short travel ipod with video for the plane or bus. 

I think the idea makes sense and it helps to create a three tier model:

shuffle: everyone’s convenient second ipod

nano: consumer level; style, small size; music/video/sports

professional: larger size for storage/viewing/battery/wi-fi for edgier uses that eventually make their way down to the nano

Posted by Thomas Affinito on December 6, 2006 at 11:34 AM (PDT)

8

Today, the capacities between iPods are too far and apart (8GB, 30GB, 80GB). I think Apple would reserve HDD based iPods for the true video iPod, while the current main iPods will receive flash based treatment.

My take:
-nano: won’t change. Maybe price drop much later on or a bump to 10GB.
-regular iPod: will transition to flash based. This will hold the ~20GB capacity. Problem is price, unless Apple can slash the nano top price to $199, then the 16GB/20GB flash based regular iPod can be at $299 spot.
-real video iPod: This will take the big HDD (60GB-100GB).

I’m still waiting for a flash based 20GB iPod. With 20GB, it will give me more flexibility in the playlists I have, and no worries for HDD reliability on the go.

Posted by pata2001 on December 6, 2006 at 1:20 PM (PDT)

9

the question is, if a ‘real video’ ipod is released and they keep the nano, and then also offer a regular ipod with flash memory, will it retain the same physical size as the current ipod?  cuz it wouldn’t need to.  the ipods now accomodate for a hard drive and if they go to flash memory there really is no reason to keep them as big as they are.  i would definitely be for going smaller.  i don’t use my 5th gen ipod for video anyway.  my ipod is for music.

Posted by bozz on December 6, 2006 at 2:51 PM (PDT)

10

i THINK IN FUTURE IPOD WILL COME IN 4 DIFFERENT SIZES AND CAPESITIES.(1)SHUFFLE WILL BE SAME.(2)NANO WILL BE SAME WITH SLIGHTLY BIGGER SCREEN AND MORE CAPISTY.(3) 16GB TO 20GB FLASH BASE IPOD(DIFFERENT NAME) WHICH WILL BE THINNER AND LESS TALLEER WITH SAME 2.5IN SCREEN SIZE.(4) 3.5IN PLUS 80GB AND 100GB TOUCH SCREEN IPOD WILL BE THE NEW TRUE IPOD VIDEO WITH WIFI CAPB.

Posted by Eskay on December 6, 2006 at 4:57 PM (PDT)

11

analyst are useless like psychics. But instead of tell you communicated to the dead they sit around and think of things that eventually will come true anyway….

Posted by Glorybox3737 on December 6, 2006 at 5:25 PM (PDT)

12

Eskay…you’re a little ridiculouse about that…
I think much more likely is the shuffle remaining a 1 to 2gb player

Nano running from 8 to 16 gb

and iPod being a 40-120gb full video player, sans touch screen > the idea of a touch screen seems to me a bad idea, I hate touching the screens of my electronics.

and to Affinito > a 2 hour movie takes up no more than 700mb as a standard divx/xvid movie, therefore 16gb could hold up to 22 movies if the codec support is right…and thats at TV resolutions, lower resolution takes up even less space > so it’s feasible, although I’d like something more like 100gb.

Posted by Ph30nix on December 10, 2006 at 3:33 AM (PDT)