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

2014 iPad iPhone iPod Buyers' Guide from iLounge.com

News

Poll: Did Apple screw up on iPod touch storage?

Author's pic

By Jeremy Horwitz

Editor-in-Chief, iLounge
Published: Thursday, September 13, 2007
News Categories: Site News

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

41

Like many here, the ONLY reason I’m holding out on the iPod Touch is the capacity.  I do understand the technological limits at present, so not blaming it all on Apple. They pretty much had to release the touch version at some point instead of waiting for flash technology to catch up.  The iPod touch likely works most efficiently with flash memory period. Hopefully, the first batch of iPod touch owners will enjoy the product and word of mouth will generate increased desire for the next upgrade. In the end, all will be fine and it’ll work out. However, I find it hard to justify spending this amount of cash for something I will not be content with due to this present limitation.  Once they make the touch at 30 + gigs, then I’ll be happy to dish out the cash.  Until then, they’re not getting a penny from me. I’ll just have to be patient.

Posted by canadan on September 13, 2007 at 3:57 PM (PDT)

42

to Kim, who said “it’s a question about playlist management”

I am glad you have the time to manage your playlist, I have better things to do then filter 50 GBs to less than 16 GB. I never know what I want to listen to and love having it all with me.

Posted by hydra-calm on September 13, 2007 at 4:25 PM (PDT)

43

I would have gladly sacrificed wireless for a hard drive. I think they went flash mostly because of the battery demands of wireless. Of course, they might have been planning that people like myself may buy a Touch because we would die without one but also a 160Gb Classic for the storage. As it turns out, I was very happy to buy both. I’m sure I’ll find the wireless to be a good inclusion.

Posted by Japester on September 13, 2007 at 4:54 PM (PDT)

44

I would have also purchased an iTouch with a hard drive.  But Apple has apparently decided that this super-thin solid-state device is the form factor for the iPhone/iTouch, along with decent battery life and wi-fi.

The big question is whether Apple made a mistake by not making an iTouch model with a hard drive to satiate fans during this phasing out period?

I don’t know, but if Apple doesn’t change their minds, it becomes a question of technology advancements and patience.

And putting 160 gigabytes of solid state memory in the iTouch would be thick as a brick at 10 times the price ($3,990).

Here’s what Moore’s Law would roughly predict regarding the packing of more memory into the same super thin size at around the same price.  Can you wait?

12 to 18 months: 32 GB Solid State (8,000 songs) / 256 GB Hard Drive (64,000 songs)
3 Years: 64 GB Solid State (16,000 songs) / 512 GB Hard Drive (128,000 songs)
4.5 Years:  128 GB Solid State (32,000 songs) / 1 TB Hard Drive (256,000 songs)
6 Years: 256 GB Solid State (64,000 songs) / 2 TB Hard Drive (512,000 songs)

Surely the portable player’s hard drive life is numbered.

Were currently in that gray area of technology where most will be served soon, but we’re not quite there yet.

So buy a Classic and when it’s ready to be retired never buy a hard drive again for a hand-held device.

Posted by BrendanPatrick on September 13, 2007 at 8:01 PM (PDT)

45

I just want a music player, I don’t care about video or wi-fi, at least not while it’s on such a tiny screen.

The click wheel keeps things simple and faster to use. I’m not so sure the iTouch interface is the great thing everyone says if you only want to play music.

I’d go for the 160Gb Classic, the first iPod where I won’t have to decide what parts of my collection go on and what gets left off.

Posted by Bevan McCabe on September 13, 2007 at 9:27 PM (PDT)

46

To say Apple messed up is a bit strong. They are obviously going to sell an awul lot of these iPods, simply because they are beautifully designed, novel and clever. On the other hand, this is so obviously a first version of this new type of iPod I can’t understand why people are getting so worked up. There will be new versions coming out with more memory, very soon, I am sure.

I can wait. I am sure they will only get better, and all the wrinkles will be ironed out. Meanwhile, I have a very nice 5th generation iPod, only 18 months old which will do me for quite some time to come. What people are really complaining about is the fact that their dream didn’t quite come true.

Posted by Queen Dragon on September 14, 2007 at 2:26 AM (PDT)

47

Deception! I was waiting for at least 80gb, no t16gb.

Posted by João Oliveira on September 14, 2007 at 6:58 AM (PDT)

48

I read the responses to this post & people amuse me.

So the iPod touch has 16 GB of memory. Big deal. What it represents is the big thing - a solid state electronic device with NO MOVING PARTS. This thing will still be playing music when all of the other HDD iPods have long since died. That alone is worth the price.

Personally, my library is 32 GB comprised of almost 7,000 songs @ 160 kbps or higher. That’s almost 20 straight days of music if you listen continuously - how many of you do that?

Given that this iPod will hold 3,500 songs, (depending on how you store your music), isn’t that enough to scrape by with?

Posted by dg on September 14, 2007 at 7:57 AM (PDT)

49

I’m happy with 8GB or 16GB or storage capacity but it has to come with a time-machine too so I can go back a few years.

Posted by rick on September 14, 2007 at 10:01 AM (PDT)

50

Wow… I can’t tell you how aggravating to be told by others what you need and don’t need. That’s up the the individual. All these posts saying “you don’t need 160 GB” or “you just need to manage your playlists” or “that’s plenty for commuting” or “isn’t that enough to scrape by with” etc. Who are you to decide what other people need?!?!?! Seriously. Grow up.

Some people like having everything with them. You don’t. So what? Deal with it. Other people like to rip everything in Lossless. You think it’s a waste of space. So what? Deal with it.

I also find the suggestion the the Touch is the future and the classic click wheel interface will, naturally, be phased out to be annoying. The Touch interface is super cool… but if all you want to do is select and play music… it’s massive overkill.

To use a Touch, you have to use both hands. One to hold it, one to point. You could MAYBE use one hand and the thumb of that same hand… but it would be a challenge I think… and it was certainly not designed to be used as such. You also have to do a lot of “mousing” around… moving from one area of the screen to another to use the various GUI controls. It’s not really a music player… it’s a mini-computer with a full blown graphical interface. Again… that’s cool… but if all you want is a music player… it’s overkill… and I’d say it’s also slower and more cumbersome. The click wheel may not be sexy anymore… but you can use a classic iPod with one hand and the thumb of that same hand. You can get to any song is seconds with just two simple movements… and without ever having to reposition your “pointer”... just twirl and click. That’s it. Twirl and click. Simple. Easy. Fast. Efficient.

Think about it this way… you COULD design a toaster with an LCD screen and a touch sensitive graphical user interface… with a calendar… and WiFi… and Safari… and whatever else… but if all you want to do is make toast… a dial and a lever is a MUCH better interface!!!!!!!

As for the original topic… ya… 16 GB is lame… but I agree with making the Touch solid state. That makes sense. We just have to wait for memory prices to come down.

Posted by David Lewis on September 15, 2007 at 5:20 AM (PDT)

51

Yes.  They lost a sale to me.  I was ready to move up from my 4g to a touch.  But without the storage, then nope. 

With the phone, I would feel somewhat differently given it is a convergence device, but again I was totally underwhelmed by the capacity.  16GB for the phone is adequate, and I would consider getting a 16GB phone after they fixed all the problems (No 3G, closed platform, no Exchange)

For a dedicated media player, 16GB is laughable.

Posted by Gilatrout on September 15, 2007 at 9:42 AM (PDT)

52

eh, I still say they did it, so more people would buy an iphone for christmas, they have the mp3 market, the phone market they do not. I didn’t even consider buying an iphone till I saw what the new Ipods would look like and then I began to justify spending the same price on something 8 gb less, but could integrate my phone and many other features, now I’m hooked. I used to believe that there was no way I could ever live without hauling around my entire 80 gb of music and movies, but now that I have an Iphone, really, 8 is all you need, this works for me, for others it doesn’t and I can understand that. The primary issue here is do you browse around your collection more or less than 8gb a day, the answer varies from person to person.

Posted by auburnguy in ga on September 15, 2007 at 7:42 PM (PDT)

53

As far as capacity goes, there are two or three options.

1) You can have a player which carries a subset of your music library, which is going to be more than you can listen to, but which inevitably means preselecing (deliberately or randomly) what you listen to. I have a 4Gb Mini for this.

2) You can have a player which carries your entire library, so you can at a whim select what you want to listen to. This is what the Classic currently provides for those with large libraries (Mine’s about 78Gb including over 600 CDs, and lots of podcasts)

3) You might have a small library in which case the Touch will provide the second function for you, and good for you.

Personally, I want to carry my full library, and I want the Touch interface, so I really want Apple to produce an iTouch HD (preferably 100Gb+). I don’t see a Flash device providing this capacity in the foreseeable future.

Posted by Phil B on September 17, 2007 at 8:39 AM (PDT)

54

My previous iPod, a 20gig hard-drive based pre-iPod-photo model, recently went crazy (after about 4 years of use, mind you) hard drive wise.  The storage on the Touch may be small, but I’m glad to have the flash memory instead of the hard-drive.

Posted by jack on October 5, 2007 at 9:16 AM (PDT)

55

I’d rather have flash memory as I don’t have much music and hard drives break more easily. 8GB is more than enough for me, let alone 16GB!

Posted by Wii-man on October 5, 2007 at 10:32 AM (PDT)

56

I haven’t read the whole thread yet, but yes, more storage would have been nice. I’ve just bought a Touch myself, and have noticed that the transfer of data between the PC and iPod is the slowest yet!
The 5G has much faster data transfer.

Posted by Fletch on October 5, 2007 at 5:04 PM (PDT)

57

i need something that will be my media library that i can carry around with me. The full screen touchscreen feature is great for that and i was really exited when the rumor circulating around a year ago about a 160 gig touchscreen ipod. But i was really disappointed when i found out that a 4 gig ipod trying to imitate the functions of a laptop was actually it.

Posted by Brian on October 28, 2007 at 7:59 PM (PDT)

58

Apple blew it from the get go….  even after the 32g came about…  having the iPhone is a better bargain than having the touch!!!! What the heck.  But… now you can’t buy an iPhone without locking yourself to ATT.  Give me a break.  They advertise as having the best coverage…. wake up ATT… your service is the absolute WORST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I love the Apple products but wouldn’t touch em with a 10 foot pole until they are avail on someother (any other) carrier.

Posted by JOE BAGADONUTS on August 12, 2008 at 6:51 AM (PDT)

59

Yes I think they screwed up BIG TIME.  Now they are offering 32GB of storage for a whopping 500 bucks.  I think my MP3 collection is larger than that, and that’s not even counting all the video I would like to put on the HD.  I’ll stick with my 80GB Classic for now.  I’ve even been thinking about buying the 160GB Classic for the added storage space.  But I would love a touch screen, but at that cost, I simply cannot justify it based on the storage space.

Posted by Bruce James on August 14, 2008 at 12:15 PM (PDT)

Page 3 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 section entry.

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Shop for Accessories: Cases, speakers, chargers, etc.