Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

8 & 10 GB iPod Nanos Rumored

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the on-the-horizon dept.

238

koweja writes "The UK based technology magazine T3 is predicting that Apple will release larger iPod Nanos in the near future. From the article, "Munster's reasoning is that, as the touchscreen iPod will likely not now appear until next year, Apple needs to launch something eye-catching in time for the lucrative run-up to Christmas - and bigger capacity nanos fit the bill nicely." Granted it's an almost completely unsubstantiated prediction from somebody outside of Apple, but it is what a lot of people have been asking for since the original Nanos came out."

cancel ×

238 comments

In Other News (5, Funny)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180449)

I rumored a 16GB iNewton is in the works. Does that make me any more credible!?

Re:In Other News (4, Funny)

chris_eineke (634570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180522)

iKnewIt!

Apr. 22:Prostitute Schedule @MBOT in San Francisco (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180950)

Like Las Vegas, San Francisco offers prostitution as a tourist attraction. If you want to buy some prostitution services (i.e., hand job, blow job, or full sexual intercourse), you need to merely walk through the doors of the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater (MBOT), located at 895 O'Farrell Street, San Francisco, California.

Check out the prostitute schedule for April 22, 2006 at the MBOT [fuckedcompany.com] .

The prostitute schedule is updated daily.

Unlike Las Vegas, San Francisco does not regulate prostitution. So, the MBOT heartily welcomes everyone -- including HIV-positive customers.

Re:In Other News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181050)

Steve Jobs coordinates Extraordinary Rendition for all "cider spillers" (Apple news leakers) with the CIA.

Bigger? (0, Redundant)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180458)

The UK based technology magazine T3 is predicting that Apple will release larger iPod Nanos in the near future


I thought everything was meant to be getting smaller, or did they mean the storage capacity?

Re:Bigger? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180498)

Congrats, you're the first poster on slashdot to manage fusing a HORRIBLE joke with extreme grammar nazism!

Re:Bigger? (-1, Offtopic)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180539)

Congrats, you're the first


Do I get a medal?

Re:Bigger? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180976)

you get -3 karma points today. enjoy.

Wow! Baseless speculation! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180465)

Gosh... here's some more... Apple will eventually release a 16 gig ipod Nano! You heard it here first.

Anyway, a 10 gig Nano makes no sense. 8? Sure, but 10? No. It can't be a single chip, and the size difference between it and an 8 gig isn't enough to justify the price difference for most people.

Re:Wow! Baseless speculation! (5, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180536)

I've seen product tear-downs that showed the current nano had two flash chips in the 4GB version, one in the 2GB version. Some might have two 1GB chips if it was more cost-effective. So an 8GB nano would have two two 4GB chips. Of course, bare flash chips are rated in bits, not bytes, so the chips might be 8Gb, 16Gb and 32Gb for the respective sizes.

It might be more realistic to expect to see a 6GB version (1x 4GB and 1x 2GB chip) and the 4 and 2 GB models pushed down in price $50 each.

Re:Wow! Baseless speculation! (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180682)

I'm too lazy to actually check out the sources, but wikipedia says it's 1x1GB, 2x1GB and 1x4GB respectively. Since there's 4GB chips already, and apparently room for two I imagine it's a matter of cost. An 8GB Nano would have a quite high price point.

my prediction (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180469)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that Apple will never increase the capacity of the Nano. Why would they do something as stupid as that?

Re:my prediction (1)

bhaak1 (219906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180634)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that Apple will never increase the capacity of the Nano. Why would they do something as stupid as that?

To create a gap for the iPod Pico. It will have a whooping 128 MB of RAM to hold all your favourite ring tones.

Re:my prediction (5, Funny)

Andrzej Sawicki (921100) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180660)

You misspelled iPod Flea [google.com] . ;)

Dvorak's answer (4, Funny)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180794)

If Dvorak had been writing this then it would be:

"Apple needs to allow Microsoft to run Windows on the iPod. I don't believe it either but I love to screw with your head".

iPod pico (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180800)

And they will release a new ipod smaller than nano named iPod Pico.

Nanos were made to have smaller capacity (4, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180472)

Nanos were made to have smaller capacity because Apple weren't selling a good balance of Minis and normal iPods, if they increase the storage capacity it gives people less incentive to buy a more expensive regular iPod.

And does this really qualify as news?

Re:Nanos were made to have smaller capacity (1)

DoorFrame (22108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180479)

Not if they bump the storage on the larger iPods as well.

Re:Nanos were made to have smaller capacity (3, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180802)

Not if they bump the storage on the larger iPods as well.

No, there's a break-even point. Even a 20GB iPod will play about music for about two weeks continuously, day and night before repeating. Every CD and vinyl record I've collected in the past 20 years will fit on a 40GB iPod, and that's close to AU$20,000 worth.

I suspect everything I'd ever want to listen to would fit on a 100G iPod, and it would only take a 6 TB iPod to play music continuously for every waking hour of my life without repeats. I wouldn't want to buy anything bigger than that.

Re:Nanos were made to have smaller capacity (5, Insightful)

radish (98371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180944)

Right, but you forget two major factors.

1) The fullsize ipods do video now. That needs a whole lot more space. The nano doesn't do video (does it?) and so the nano almost fits the "music only" category, which tops out around 20-40GB for most people. The HD based ipods then become more and more targetted at video customers.

2) Lossless. I listen to my music at home via Squeezeboxes [slimdevices.com] , and lots of people are starting to use HTPCs, Airport, etc to listen to the same rips at home as on the go. I know I sure as hell don't want to listen to AAC or MP3 on my nice hifi, so it's lossless all the way. Now I could (and in fact, do) keep two copies of everything - one for portable and one for home. But that's a pain to maintain. Would be easier if I didn't have to worry about space and could store all those huge files on a portable player too. My CD rips are currently around 200GB, and most of it is still lossy. When it's all reripped as lossless we'll be looking at over 0.5TB. Bring on the big portable players :)

Re:Nanos were made to have smaller capacity (1)

matt21811 (830841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181005)

I totally agree with your sentiment but you maths seems a small bit off.

128kbits per second is 16k per second.
16k * 3600 seconds is 57600k/hr or 57.6 megs per hour.
57.6 * 16 (waking) hours is 921 megs per day. Or about 0.9 gigs per day.
365 days * .9 is 328 gigs per year.

6 gigs divided by 0.328 gives just over 18 years.

Now, I plan to live at least to 80 so maybe I'm in the market for a 15 terabyte iPod instead (note that I'm already 34). Young buyers that want lossless sound quality should be looking for an 80 terabyte model.

Re:Nanos were made to have smaller capacity (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181088)

I totally agree with your sentiment but you maths seems a small bit off.

Assumptions rather than maths. I based the calc on a million hours, which is the traditional measure of an average working life (used for safety and mortality calculations). It doesn't take into account leisure hours.

None the less, we're still within an order of magnitude of agreement, so I think the principle remains.

Re:Nanos were made to have smaller capacity (4, Insightful)

plumby (179557) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181129)

There is a point at which it would become pointless, but 60GB aint it. I've got over 100GB of (legally aquired) mp3s in my library, and although there's a limit to the amount of music that I can listen to while I'm out, I don't know when I leave the house exactly which tracks I'm going to want to listen to - greater capacity means greater choice of music when I'm in the mood.

Incentives have changed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180486)

iPod Nano has its small size (smaller than the mini), and regular iPods are moving into the video arena, so they again have a need for larger capacity (and screen size).

Re:Nanos were made to have smaller capacity (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180627)

if they increase the storage capacity it gives people less incentive to buy a more expensive regular iPod.

Ever heard of PMR [wikipedia.org] ? I would guess that a storage capacity bump is due for the larger iPods as well.

Storage space isn't the only factor (2, Insightful)

achesterase (918544) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180679)

Yes, well one factor is the storage capacity, but let's not forget the size. At least for me, the smaller form factor of the Nano makes it much more attractive than the normal iPod and I don't think that I'm alone. These are really two distinct product lines with usually quite distinct user bases.

Re:Storage space isn't the only factor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180964)

This is the reason I bought my 4GB Nano last year. Not storage but size. I hope they do up the storage on them. I will get a new one.

Re:Nanos were made to have smaller capacity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180863)

Nanos were made to have smaller capacity because Apple weren't selling a good balance of Minis and normal iPods, if they increase the storage capacity it gives people less incentive to buy a more expensive regular iPod.

No, Apple introduced the nano as the mini's marketplace was just about to get crowded -- now everyone that entered the space had a 3rd rate nano. Brilliant move -- Apple created the space and destroyed it, giving it a lion's share of the new market.

Re:Nanos were made to have smaller capacity (1)

iwsnet (946715) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180907)

Increasing the storage size of the Nano is called progress. It's about time Apple brought out new iPods. They have been selling the same stuff since last year but still managed to move 8.5 million units in the first quarter.

Re:Nanos were made to have smaller capacity (3, Informative)

teslar (706653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181034)

Nanos were made to have smaller capacity because Apple weren't selling a good balance of Minis and normal iPods.
I'd say the capacity of the Nano has more to do with the flash memory than with any marketing goals. Flash memory is expensive and doesn't come in large-capacity flavours. Once it becomes cheaper and comes in higher capacities, you can bet that there will be higher-capacity Nanos out.
if they increase the storage capacity it gives people less incentive to buy a more expensive regular iPod.
Precisley. Which is why the regular iPods will be phased out, save perhaps for some large-screen video iPod. After all, why would I want a hard disk based mp3 player if I can have a solid state one with the same capacity for the same price? Hard disk players are going to die out, it's inevitable. Regular iPods won't be an exception.

Is Flash Memory Cheap Enough? (2, Insightful)

Nazmun (590998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181049)

Has flash memory become cheap enough for 8-10gb nano's to be out with a nice profit margin?

Does size matter? (1, Interesting)

simonjp (970013) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180475)

Why really needs a size like this? I have a MDplayer and 1GB on my PDA and survive easily (even got a movie on the pda, but not found a long enough tube trip to watch it all yet). Cynical people like me might think that it could be a gimmick where they can reduce supplies of the smaller memory sized nanos, and sell the bigger (oh look more expensive!) nanos... surely they have a bigger margin on those too ?

Re:Does size matter? (1)

DoorFrame (22108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180534)

I've been waiting to buy one for the size to hit around 15 gigs so they can hold all the music on my computer at once. That seems useful to me. I don't really want to hassle with changing what's on there when I get bored of the selection.

Re:Does size matter? (4, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180622)

I don't really want to hassle with changing what's on there when I get bored of the selection.

You don't have to. I have my iTunes auto-rotate tracks on my 4GB nano. It's not obvious, but what you can do is sync the unit to one or more smart playlists. The smart playlists are set to randomly select a certain number of tracks that have been played less than "X" number of times. Right now, my "X" is "1". Once it has been played, it is removed and another track replaces it. With this scheme, I think I can do very well with a 1GB nano.

Re:Does size matter? (1)

LokiSnake (795582) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180837)

Apple should implement the autofill feature for the nano also. Many have music collections of more than what a nano can hold, and not everyone knows how to create and use a Smart playlist to do that. I know of many friends in such a situation, and didn't want a Shuffle because there is no screen.

Re:Does size matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180647)

Actually, I once thought the same when I purchased a 5gb Rio(Yeah.. they're kinda now a dead business). In the next few months, since I had some space to fill, I tried to fill it - and did. I started listening to a lot more music because of it, too, and now I've got almost 6x that capacity at 28 gb of music. That's besides the various files I could transport with it for work or classes.

I could certainly use more capacity. I know you can't listen to 28 gigs of music in one sitting(unless you're sitting for a couple days) but I find that I'm often looking for an artist I couldn't fit on the Rio in the last synchronization. And you can never predict what you'd want to listen to because of the way music works with moods and your current environment.

In summary; I'd probably buy a 10 gb nano. If not larger.

Re:Does size matter? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180786)

1 gb is a bit tight as far as im concerned. 4gb is a 'useable' size for daily use.

Re:Does size matter? (1)

shotgunefx (239460) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180858)

I needed to go up to 40gb in my Nomad Jukebox and this was before ipods existed.

Holy **** people... (0, Flamebait)

x1n933k (966581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180484)

How much memory do you need man!

A rack of CD's?
A 200GB HD if pirated music?

iPod Shuffle?
iPod Video/Nano?

I guess I ask a dumb question. Maybe it's when I see 20+ people on Public transit with iPods in their hand do I wonder about where people have their focus.

As for the article and pridiction, well duhh. The future will bring more memory to our pockets. I predict less than 150 replies for this topic. [J]

Re:Holy **** people... (1)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180506)

I predict less than 150 replies for this topic. [J]


Hmm, is there money being wagered here? ;-)

Re:Holy **** people... (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180582)

Slashdot is for entertainment purposes only! Please, no wagering. ;)

But it's kewl!!!!! (1)

bhaak1 (219906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180605)

My music collection is nowadays around 7 GB. But that includes of course music I hardly ever listen to. And even if I would want to even on an iPod it is not that convenient to search for specific songs in a heap of several thousands.

I don't think that there are a lot of people around who could fill 10 GB with legal music. What would they put on a 10 GB iPod Nano? For the normal iPod we have a solution: Movies.

But for the iPod Nano? Flip-books?

People will probably buy those Nanos just to be cool and be able to say "my iPod Nano is larger than yours".

Re:But it's kewl!!!!! (1)

xerxesdaphat (767728) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180652)

I have roughly 2500 songs on my 30gb iPod Video. I would have more but I've hit the 30gb limit. Now, when I had less than 30gb of music it was great; I just dumped the entire contents of my music collection on my iPod and left it as that. Now, I have to fiddle around and delete music then replace it with new music and such... if I'm on my 1 1/2 hour commute to university and I suddenly think `wow I want to hear that John Coltrane album, I haven't heard that in ages!' and I don't have it it's a bit disappointing. As for finding specific songs on an iPod, have you ever used one? The UI is fantastic... I can find any song in seconds... that's one of the reasons why I got an iPod as opposed to something else as the UI is just so good for large music collections.

One final thing; wasn't one of the major reasons we all got digital music players because of the convenience? How you didn't have to swap CDs out of your player to hear a different album, and try and search which particular CD has the song you want? Huge amounts of storage increases convenience, and is one of the main reasons people use digital music players or computers to play music as opposed to a stereo with a CD player.

Re:But it's kewl!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180772)

Mingus rulez!

Re:But it's kewl!!!!! (1)

bhaak1 (219906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180803)

As for finding specific songs on an iPod, have you ever used one? The UI is fantastic... I can find any song in seconds... that's one of the reasons why I got an iPod as opposed to something else as the UI is just so good for large music collections.

I too think the UI of the iPod is fantastic and that there is at the moment no other player that is as good as an iPod.

My problem is that I don't want to fiddle every other song with the player. When a song starts that I don't like to hear right at the moment I'll have to switch as I know that there are better songs on the player.

Maybe I have to much audio books on my player or songs that I only want to listen to when I'm in a special mood for them, but the random selection of (hardware and software) players is usually quite bad.

Is there know player out there that allows to combine playlists on the fly? Or maybe even set operations over playlists (play only the songs from playlist A that are not in playlist B)? Such dynamic playlist is a feature I miss in even the most sophisticated software music players.

Re:But it's kewl!!!!! (1)

radish (98371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180659)

Meh...my music library is around 200GB (all legal, I might add). My portable player is only 20 so there's a lot not on it - the larger the better as far as I'm concerned.

Oh and I don't say this to boast, I'm music obsessed and realise I'm not "normal" in that sense, but it's the old slashdot adage - just because it's not useful for you doesn't mean it's not useful.

166 CDs is not a lot (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180942)

I don't think that there are a lot of people around who could fill 10 GB with legal music.

10 gigabytes * 1000000 kilobytes per gigabyte * 8 bits per byte / 160 kilobits per second / 3000 seconds per CD = 166 CDs. I know a lot of people who own two or three times that many. Given that CDs have been around for over two decades, 8 CDs a year is not that many.

But for the iPod Nano? Flip-books?

Google sees over 13 million slide shows available through the Web [google.com] .

Re:Holy **** people... (0)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180645)

I recently bought a pair of 250GB disks to run as a mirror pair for my legal music collection because I've got another fifty CDs or so that need encoding. Big part of the reason I need so much space is because I archive in flac, but even lossy it would take in the neighborhood of 45-50GB to hold the 700 or so albums I have.

Re:Holy **** people... (1)

m2bord (781676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180695)

exactly...like the two previous posters i have over a terabyte of music and video that i legally own. i have purchased well over 1000 cds in my lifetime and i do remember when cds first came out in 1983. i was working in a record store and we had three titles to choose from.

but the problem that i see is navigation and sync times on these devices are going to get longer and longer unless they start using gigabit networking.

Re:Holy **** people... (1)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180946)

My bet would be eSATA. Over six times faster than USB2 or FW400, and over three times faster than gigabit even if you ignore protocol overhead.

I've been holding off on a video archiving solution until the perpendicular drives started pushing capacities up again. Now that the new Seagates are announced, I just want to wait until the kinks with the first models are worked out and they get a near-line rated drive on the market.

Re:Holy **** people... (2, Interesting)

gravesb (967413) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180720)

If people are willing to purchase a larger capacity iPod, why shouldn't Apple offer it to them? Companies should never limit sizes because a few people don't understand why you need that much hard drive(or flash memory) space. When we went to Iraq, everyone who had iPods copied their entire music selection to their iPod, and those who didn't had almost no music. If you build it, they will come. Also, what are people supposed to be focused on while on public transportation? Its not like they are driving...

Re:Holy **** people... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180954)

Also, what are people supposed to be focused on while on public transportation?

Thanking God that they live in a geographic area that has usable public transportation, perhaps?

Re:Holy **** people... (1)

x1n933k (966581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181063)

Although I was going to write something harsh. Especially with the idea of,"If you build it, they will come"

I'll just go with this: It has to do with SELFISHNESS. Trying to block out a loud, and abused world. Temporary distractions for yourself instead of using the and time recording your library for something better. I've got nothing wrong with music. It's when you see $1000 of equipment hanging off of 20 people (iPod, Cellphone, PSP for example). There's something wrong there. $20,000.00. What should people be focused on while riding the bus wasn't the point.

[J]

Re:Holy **** people... (1)

mh101 (620659) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181062)

I had an older 30 GB iPod, that was almost full - 99.5% of which was from CDs I own. I few months back I bought a 60GB 5G iPod so I'd have room to grow.

If I were to load all my parents' CDs onto an iPod, I'd fill up 30 GB no problem. And if I were to load all their old records and cassette tapes as well, I'd probably fill up a 100 GB iPod easily, if one existed.

I think I speak for others too... (1)

jollyroger1210 (933226) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180489)

...when I say that the Mini was the best combination of size, price, storage, etc. Bring that back first.

Larger Nano (5, Funny)

Ryz0r (849412) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180497)

>>Apple will release larger iPod Nanos in the near future

I hear it's going to be called the iPodx10^-8

Re:Larger Nano (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180850)

Strange, I heard it was either iPod 10 Nano or iPod Deka-Nano. TBD by Jobs.

So, are they going to be sued too? (0, Flamebait)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180501)

Given that Apple is rather sue happy, will T3 be sued too?

Re:So, are they going to be sued too? (-1, Offtopic)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180570)

Everuone posting here will be sued as well! Oh crap...

The Point here is... (0)

Koheleth (967677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180507)

It seems that the question would be, will this happen? and if so, would it be a smart move on Apples part?

I can't say that it will happen, but it would be a decent move on Apples part. They don't make much margin on the main device (weather large or small) the money is in the periphels. So more units out there would increase the likleyhood of the $ making extras.

PLUS it could save face for the touchscreen miss.

Re:The Point here is... (0)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180615)

They don't make much margin on the main device (weather large or small) the money is in the periphels.

Apple makes a healthy margin on the "main" device. This has been their M.O. for years, as far back as the original Mac.

Re:The Point here is... (2, Interesting)

edwdig (47888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180812)

On a conference call to discuss the results, Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said iPod gross margins were above 20% during the quarter, and that according to NPD Techworld, the company now holds 78% of the U.S. market for MP3 players.


Found the quote in this article: http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?g uid=%7B96F58ECA-995C-42E4-ABAB-A3CBA070E6E1%7D&sou rce=blq%2Fyhoo&dist=yhoo&siteid=yhoo [marketwatch.com]

I'd consider that to be making goood money off the main device.

Re:The Point here is... (1)

eMartin (210973) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180832)

"PLUS it could save face for the touchscreen miss."

Wait a second?

Are you suggesting that Apple should somehow make up for not releasing something they themselves never intended to in the first place?

Is it even physically possible? (2, Insightful)

Evro (18923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180544)

Do 8 & 10 gig flash media drives even exist at this time (or in the near future)?

Re:Is it even physically possible? (1)

AusIV (950840) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180576)

And if they did, would they be anywhere near small enough to be called "nano"?

8 do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180602)

There are 8 gig CF drives, and I think 8 gig SD drives will be out soon. They are still rather expensive, though.

Re:Is it even physically possible? (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180763)

Do 8 and 10GB flash media drives even exist at this time?
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=1026 8 [lacie.com]

Re:Is it even physically possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181107)

If you look at the price for 4GB Compact Flash cards, it's already well above the price of the 4GB Nano (about $350 for a SanDisk 4GB Ultra II card). But as a negating point, that card is much much faster than is needed to play MP3s off of, as it was designed for Canon's 1DMkII and 1DsMkII and Nikon's D2X which can produce tons of data (the 1DMkII shoots 8.5 8.2MP images a second), so the memory used in an iPod Nano could be much slower without causing a prolbem (the Ultra II cards can write at about 9MB/s and read at about 10MB/s if the devices' memory controller can handle it).

Re:Is it even physically possible? (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180951)

You can combine two, three or even four chips; in fact when my USB flash drive broke and I opened the case, I found two identical Toshiba chips inside and placeholders for two more on the other side of the PCB (probably for twice-the-capacity drives).

Just 10GB? (5, Funny)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180564)

10GB? Lame, that's barely enough for my Frank Zappa MP3s.

And what about wireless?

Here is Why... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180603)

You can get a 4GB USB thumb drive for $100 [meritline.com] (or get four 512MB and one 2GB bundled together [dealmac.com] for $108). The current crop of MicroDrives (CompactFlash-compatible miniature hard drives [buy.com] ) of similar capacity runs even less.

If a normal consumer can buy these things on the retail market today, Apple really needs to get its act together and start increasing capacity on its lower end or it is going to lose that market to these cheap drives and the simple add-ons that allow playback of music.

Re:Here is Why... (1)

LokiSnake (795582) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180809)

But then where is the pretty Apple logo? One can't be hip without the Apple logo...

Of course you can. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180853)

Re:Here is Why... (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180868)

Oh right, consumers don't care about looks, build quality, ease of use, or convenience any more? Storage density or price is all that matters now, right?

As a business Apple needs to maintain profitability. I'm sure they'll refresh to 6gb and 10gb later this year, but if they do it too early then the cost vs price is too high and if they do it too late then the sales interest will drop.

Re:Here is Why... (1)

MrJynxx (902913) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181076)

They won't use those mini hard drives because it has the potential to skip. They need to make advances in the CF solid state memory..

MrJynxx

Apple has never competed on price (2, Interesting)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181097)

Apple has never competed on price. The basic iPod is still the most expensive MP3 player by about 30%. And for the cost of a 4GB nano, you can get a 20GB HDD based MP3 player. Heck, you can get a 20 GB Archos Jukebox for 100 dollars [dealtree.net] if you look.

Where Apple shines is form factor. That Archos Jukebox can be amazingly cheap, but it won't fit in your pocket. The iRiver [iriver.com] is a powerful, fully featured player, but just try to get it to do anything without taking a course at your technical school. Even the regular iPod is big by many people's standards, leading to the popularity of the Mini and Nano.

And if you haven't held it in your hands, the Nano is damned small. This thing could fit in a wallet. It can fit in the tiny key pocket on most jeans. You don't have to decide between taking your iPod or your PDA (or your iPod or your Compact, etc). Just take 'em both. They'll both fit.

Besides, if you're comparing USB drives, why not compare to the Shuffle [apple.com] ? 100 dollars for 1GB of storage, which includes the battery and playback interface out of the box. Not an amazingly low cost solution, but not bad compared to the rest of the stuff in that space.

An MP3 player is more than just flash memory, you know.

More Music (5, Funny)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180658)

Great, a 10GB would let you have 2,500 songs (according to apple's rating), this is great business for apple. Now instead of just getting 1,000 dollars from people to fill it, they can bump it up to 2,500 dollars! Brilliant!

Re:More Music (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180807)

Great, a 10GB would let you have 2,500 songs

If it was Sony's rating then that would be 5000 ;) I still can't work out how sony is selling any media players at all.

Rumor v.s. obvious. (0, Redundant)

blanks (108019) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180672)

Naturally as larger (smaller) hard drives become cheaper they will come up with ipods with more space, this isnt a rumor that they will be doing it, maybe a rumor that it will be happening soon.

I still want to see a 100 gig regular ipod... (0, Redundant)

Hatchback Mustang (855588) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180676)

...but no thicker than it is now. I have 35 gigs out of my 40 used right now with only 6000 songs. Granted some of my library is in 192 mp3 and 256 mp3. But thats the next iPod I will buy.

Re:I still want to see a 100 gig regular ipod... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180744)

Wow, thanks for sharing this information! It's so wonderful knowing about your purchase decisions and how filled your Ipod is with music. I really found this interesting and insightful on the topic!

Difference between rumor and speculation (3, Insightful)

heli_flyer (614850) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180688)

There's a difference between rumor and speculation, and this is more speculation than rumor.

nano replaced mini (4, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180689)

The nanos were clearly created to replace the minis, which were cute but had limited battery life due to the power requirements of the hard drives, and as they were so small could not have larger batteries.

As the minis were phased out, they had a capacity of 6 gig. I have been expecting the nano to increase to 8 gig for a while. Of course the nano still has a short battery life, and perhpas the added memeory is just going to make that worse.

The 4GB are available, and given Apple discounts are not overly expensive. I do not see a 10 gig nano, as the nanos seem to have pairs of cards. Hopefully they will come out with a 8 gig Nano in the $250 price range, and drop the other prices according. That might be enough space to make it worthwhile. I would also like to see a 2gig shuffle, though that product line also seems to be dead.

why? (3, Insightful)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180740)

I don't see the point. If you're gonna dock to your computer, then you only need memory for one battery charge, and 2G is plenty. If you're going to use a charger while traveling, 10G strikes me as too small for a regular music collection.

I bought the 4G but discovered through use that I could have saved my money and lived just fine with the 1G or 2G model.

Re:why? (1)

MooUK (905450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180806)

I don't regularly listen to about 70% of what's on my iRiver. Nevertheless, it's useful to have it there since I do use it occasionally - and especially since I use it to play music through the mixing desk during intervals at the gigs I help run.

The music you have on there at the start of the day might not be what you fancy listening to at the end of the day. And most people don't want to keep moving music backwards and forwards every time their immediate taste changes slightly - they want it all available.

Yes, you might not listen to all of it on one battery charge, but do you really want to re-choose and move across different music every time you charge just to keep it varied?

It's not a major hassle, but it is still hassle that can be avoided.

Re:why? (1)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180877)

Yes, but I find 2G already gives me plenty of extra space for those unanticipated musical urges.

Re:why? (1)

General_Crespin (840569) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180966)

Agreed. I use ~22GB on my iRiver H340, and that's only with music that I want to listen to, it is very nice to be able to listen to any song I want to when I want to.

Re:why? (1)

apollosfire (954290) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181020)

I agree too. I have ~20gb of music on my iRiver iHP-140 (aka H140) and whilst only 2-3gb of it is regularly used, it's great for it to be there. Good for hooking upto Hi-Fi systems at parties and stuff too; I almost always have music that gets requested!

How about instead increasing sound quality! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180758)

Instead of increasing the storage capacity why not increase the sound quality. Those preset EQ's do nothing but ruin the music. How about a 10 band EQ and a superior op amp. Mabey if you listen with those crappy ear buds you won't hear anything, but get a set or respectable headphones and music gets hard to listen to, with piercing highs and muddy mid bass and lack of any good deep bass.

Well, I'm convinced (5, Funny)

Tim Browse (9263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180779)

Granted it's an almost completely unsubstantiated prediction from somebody outside of Apple, but it is what a lot of people have been asking for since the original Nanos came out.

There are rumours that God exists. Granted it's an almost completely unsubstantiated prediction from somebody outside of Heaven, but it is what a lot of people have been wanting since the original Homo Sapiens came out.

It has been done already (5, Informative)

Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180797)

Hackaday.com recently had an article about converting a 4 GB iPod nano to an 8 GB. Apparently apple only uses 1 flash chip in the Nano to make up the entire 4 GBs, but in fact it has a second spot on the board to attach a second 4 GB flash chip. It wouold be pretty cool to have an 8 GB iPod Nano though. http://ipod.hackaday.com/entry/1234000233073484/ [hackaday.com]

Re:It has been done already (2, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180955)

I saw the original article [multiarcade.com] a while ago.

What I hadn't known is that the people at hackaday said that: "The legitimacy of this hack is yet to be confirmed.

It'd be cool if it was true, but the firmware might not be able to handle the extra space.

8Gigs? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15180836)

640k should be enough for anybody.

Screw that Crap (1)

tonyr1988 (962108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180848)

You can make your own 200GB nano [planetboredom.net] already. What's the point in waiting for Apple to increase the size (and price) to a measly 10GB?

The reason I havent bought is the small size (1)

duodave (934042) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180883)

You have to remember that the so-called 6 gb mini doesn't really hold 6 gb, it's slightly smaller (it reports 5.6 gb on the About screen). So with a decent amount of songs plus a regular collection of the four podcasts I regularly subscribe to, I easily fill my Mini. I don't see that I could put the same amount on a Nano, so I haven't bought a Nano. I'd be much more inclined to consider an 8-gig Nano, and could really care less about a touch-screen model.

Re:The reason I havent bought is the small size (2, Informative)

RemovableBait (885871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181126)

the so-called 6 gb mini doesn't really hold 6 gb, it's slightly smaller (it reports 5.6 gb on the About screen).
.
The drive does have a capacity of 6GB. The 0.4GB discrepancy is due to two factors:

  • The formatted capacity of any drive will be slightly less.
  • Hardware manufacturers consider 1GB to be 1,000,000,000B; whereas, the software considers 1GB to be 1,073,741,824B.

So saying the mini holds 6GB is not incorrect at all.

Finally! (1)

drdanny_orig (585847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15180931)

So can we now expect prices on the smaller ones to finally fall to reasonable levels? That's all that's prevented me from buying one, actually.

My iPod (3, Funny)

EZLeeAmused (869996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181079)

is going to have 11GB

This tech is so OLD it qualfies for SocialSecurity (0, Flamebait)

Bushido Hacks (788211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181135)

Dear Ipod Nano User,
10 GB hard drives are so 2001.
Sincerely,
Archos
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...