Poll: Did Apple screw up on iPod touch storage? | iLounge News

News

Poll: Did Apple screw up on iPod touch storage?

Before Apple introduced the new slate of iPods, we ran a poll asking which potential new iPod interested you the most. The responses were clear: 80% of iLounge readers most wanted a hard disk coupled with a large touchscreen display.

Now that Apple has revealed the iPod touch, coupling an iPhone-like screen and interface with iPod nano-like memory capacity, we want to know your thoughts. Did Apple drop the ball on this product, creating something you wouldn’t buy, or have you decided that you will be satisfied with its 8GB or 16GB or storage capacity? Cast your vote now in the iLounge Poll, found on the left-most column of the iLounge.com home page!

Our prior poll, which way would you most prefer to play your iTunes media, is now closed. The majority of readers (62%) said that they would prefer either an iPhone-styled Cover Flow interface (34%) or an iPhone-like scrolling list with finger gestures (28%), while 19% preferred the classic iPod Click Wheel and scrolling list interface, 12% liked a mouse-style interface with iTunes, and few people preferred computer-based Cover Flow (4%), Apple TV interface (2%), or any other control scheme (2%).

« Gecko Gear debuts Gecko Ice for 3G nano

ezGear rolls out cases for iPod classic, touch, 3G nano »

Related Stories

Comments

21

Someone in the accessory world should make an iTrip-like device that streams content from an iPod classic to the iPod touch through wifi (or to an iPhone though bluetooth). Shouldn’t be that hard, right?

Posted by tommy on September 13, 2007 at 1:54 PM (CDT)

22

Personally, I am VERY disappointed that iPod touch was introuduced with only 16G of storage.

All things considered (pricing, battery life, etc.), I think Apple could have released a HDD based iPod Touch, but decided to limit the storage capacity on the iPod Touch to prevent the device from canibalizing iPhone sales.

If I hadn’t already sold my 5.5 80G iPod, I would not have purchased a new Classic after the announcement. As it was, I only got a new 80G and did not shell out the extra cash for a 160G.

I don’t plan on purchasing another iPod until there is a HDD-based iPod touch or the flash based model reaches at least 64G (circa 2009).

Posted by Brad on September 13, 2007 at 1:59 PM (CDT)

23

If they wanted to focus on it being a video/music player, it needs to hold more.  If they wanted to pick up the people who wanted a phoneless iPhone, they should have included all the other features of the iPhone: e-mail, editable calendar, etc.  This in-between stuff where it’s not a suitable replacement for your video iPod or your iPhone is just confusing.  It’s cute, though.  I love what it can do, but I’m puzzled by the things it should be able to do that they either didn’t add or deliberately took out.

Posted by Mr. E. on September 13, 2007 at 2:03 PM (CDT)

24

Absolutely, the messed up. I work at a major broadcast network filled with mac-heads that where huddled over any monitor they could find to watch that keynote. Every one of them was disappointed with the iPod Touch’s storage capacity. More than a few, including myself, ended up going out and getting the 160GB Classic, though I personally regret it now, considering how inordinately buggy the software has proven to be.

Posted by Zero Hectic on September 13, 2007 at 2:25 PM (CDT)

25

Oh noes!!!1! I have to switch out content every once in a while from my computer to my iPod!!

/sarcasm

OK, sure, we all wanted more storage in the touch. But the bottom line is Flash is the future. My last iPod broke down because my the HD failed. And I BABIED that thing. I want something durable that will last. I’m getting a Touch on day one. Yeah,  I’ll eventually sell/trade it when 32 or 40 gigs of Flash memory are available in the future, but it’s fine for now.

Posted by Mike B. on September 13, 2007 at 2:26 PM (CDT)

26

They dropped the ball on many counts.  Not only is the storage space severely lacking, but no email, no notes, no BT and you can’t enter in a new calendar item.  Jobs opted to jump into the PDA/Smartphone market with the iPhone and the iPod Touch should have been just the phoneless version.  Apple and Jobs decided to deliver a less than mediocre product just to make the masses happy.  Only time will unveil whether these major flaws will be corrected.

Posted by sjhilbel in West Michigan on September 13, 2007 at 3:12 PM (CDT)

27

I think it’s a question about playlist management. Alot have > 30 GB of music but how often do you listen to all of that music. Do you really need to have the option to play any song you have in you library on your iPod?

Posted by Kim on September 13, 2007 at 3:31 PM (CDT)

28

Do you need your entire library with you? 

In a word… yes.

You get used to it, and I, for one don’t want to give that up, no matter how slick the UI.

Posted by Bryan on September 13, 2007 at 3:43 PM (CDT)

29

Putting a hard drive in the Touch would have made it significantly heavier and somewhat thicker. It would have also reduced battery life significantly. Finally, like all hard drive based iPods, it would be more fragile and prone to lockups and drive death.

Look, it isn’t necessary to keep an entire music collection on the device all at once. An 8GB nano can hold around 100 CDs or 2 full length movies and around 60 CDs. That isn’t enough to hold you over for a week worth of commuting?

Posted by david on September 13, 2007 at 3:53 PM (CDT)

30

I could care less about the memory size. I have a 5G that holds all the music and video I could want. I wanted an iPod that had wi-fi and safari and the touch clearly has that. What pisses me off is that Apple took away the mail app, notes and weather from the touch. I could see leaving these out if the iPhone were still priced at 599 but with the price drop the people who are buying the touch are the ones that don’t want a phone in their iPod. Apple really took away the need for a feature difference with the price drop. I hope the hackers move these apps back to the touch!

Posted by Randy Smith on September 13, 2007 at 3:53 PM (CDT)

31

I think it says more about the flexibility of the software to sync parts of one’s library.  I like to sync my whole library because I don’t like the options for syncing only a part of my library - I think if they had better software for syncing parts of libraries, the issue would be less a matter of storage capacity.

Posted by Jeremy on September 13, 2007 at 4:01 PM (CDT)

32

I don’t know if I’d characterize the new touch as a screw up.

Alberto Gonzalez? A screw up. The movie “Batman & Robin”? A screw up. Lindsay Lohan? A screw up.

But the touch? Maybe a misjudging of the market, but not a screw up—at least not yet. There have been enough complaints, ranging from the capacity to the calendar.

Ultimately the market will decide whether the touch’s success is more on the iPod end of things or the Rokr. Was Jobs wrong in going with flash instead of a hard drive? We’ll find out soon enough.

Posted by cxc273 on September 13, 2007 at 4:05 PM (CDT)

33

No BT, No email, No note…

IT’S AN IPOD not an iPhone…..
It’s for music and video….

Posted by Guillaume on September 13, 2007 at 4:06 PM (CDT)

34

Yes and the pricing is funky too.

Sandisk is coming out with a 16 gig Sansa with a bigger screen than the Nano and a smaller price than the touch.(200 bucks)

I will stick with my 30 gig Gen 5 for now.

Posted by Dean on September 13, 2007 at 4:07 PM (CDT)

35

So far it’s clear it’s not only for consumers but it’s between zune and ipod marketing. Because one little mistake will change the future forever and so i think Apple will launch ipod touch in 30GB(flash based). But we have to wait untill march ot apr. I think it’s more important if Apple launch ipod classic with with wifi ability and 3in screen and in different colors like Nano.

Posted by shehzad on September 13, 2007 at 4:24 PM (CDT)

36

What the users want and what they think they want are always too different things.
I would love an iPod Touch or iPhone with a HDD, but that doesn’t mean it would be practical.
The HDD would be delicate and unreliable (compared to Flash memory), The Battery Life would be woeful, and I’d be tempted to use the thing in place of a Laptop.
One thing Apple could do to satiate the HDD iPod Touch crowd is develop a Cable so you can connect your HDD iPod to your iPhone or iPod Touch and browse the library using Coverflow. It will also reduce the sales of old iPods on eBay and inflate the Price; encouraging new users to buy new iPods.

Posted by Daniel Woods on September 13, 2007 at 4:25 PM (CDT)

37

Like most everyone else, I am disappointed in the capacities.  Even if this were only a music player and web browser, it needs more room for people with modest music collections.

Would a hard drive based Touch hinder more than battery performance?  I am no hardware expert, but would the fragmentation of the hard disk and the pure volume of the drive slow the interface enough to annoy even the loyalist of Apple Fan Boys?

Posted by PearlMikeJam on September 13, 2007 at 4:30 PM (CDT)

38

I would like more storage 16GB is JUST enough to get by on, But I will purchase a new IPOD touch soon!!!! like end of Oct…gotta have it

Posted by Want more GB on September 13, 2007 at 5:00 PM (CDT)

39

I was jonesing for an iPod touch, been decided I’d rather carry everything in my pocket, with plenty of room to spare.  When a 3G wireless iPhone comes out, I will get one of those for touch-screen Wi-Fi goodness.

Posted by Galley on September 13, 2007 at 5:22 PM (CDT)

40

I don’t think Apple dropped the ball at all.  There is clearly a market for high capacity players hence the iPod classic.  I don’t think too many would disagree that solid state memory is the superior choice.  I believe we’ll see higher capacity solid state devices sooner than later and the current offerings may have more to do with the current shortage of NAND chips.  There is also the issue of powering a large touch display and a hard drive, while possible, the overall device would have been bulkier than most would have found acceptable.  Apple as continued to increase capacity and battery life while striving to reduce size.  The iTouch is a new device and represents a new direction and will follow the same developmental improvements as seen by the iPod (classic).  The most remarkable thing about all of this is that this (and the iPhone) is an amazing product, yet more so than not, the public dismisses this with a casual wave, in this case because it ONLY has a capacity of 16GB.  It’s not so much a comment on us, but more so the state of what we’ve come to expect of the pace of tech, and that in itself is amazing.  Oh the so long ago Bondi Blue :)

Posted by kaioslider on September 13, 2007 at 6:16 PM (CDT)

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy