YEAHHHHH New iPods!!!! - Page 3

I think apple's policy is to not give you what you want all at once so they can sell you a new version next year. Spoon feeding us what we want equals increased sales. They price fix already and keep adding on options to cost extra. iPods are one of the most expensive disposable tech gear around. A commodity.

Looks like there's some useful improvements on these new iPods, for me, most notably the stated 40 hrs playback on the "classic" one, that probably means it gets half that with lossless, which is pretty good for a stock battery.
And, the newer metallic skin is more scratch resistant hopefully, I always wondered if they didn't just keep this "feature" to create a market for skins and other cases.
But damn, it's like Street Fighter II all over again, how much longer is Apple gonna rehash the iPod? (rhetorical question, as the answer is simple: as long as there are sheep that will buy whatever they chunk out)

If my iMod crapped out and was unsalvageable or if I was looking for a new DAP, buying one wouldn't be such a bad idea.
But I just can't understand the people that buy a new iPod whenever one is released, especially non-headfiers that don't even resell the old ones but just let them rot somewhere in a drawer, an item that pretty much cost as much as their new iPod.
Plus all the accessories piss me off on a low level as well, like some third party manufacturers charging ~$15 for some small cable or $40 for a case. (you could say for "audiophile" gear it's different, but this is just overpriced mass produced stuff)
All they need to do is name the item i<Noun> and put "Designed for iPod!" on the box, and people gobble it down like, I don't know what.
These people are Apple's sheep.

This market will still be untouched, since Apple made the "genious" decision to keep the "shiny metal a*s" on the classic.

And in an even more genious move, brought them back to the new nano. Perhaps case manufacturers were loosing too much money on the all metal "old" nano?

Um what the hell went wrong with that new Nano...

It does have a slightly, updated interface. It has album flow and some different looking menus. Plus it comes in silver.

Wow, some people just can never be pleased. Show us another digital audio/video player company that has upgraded as many of their lines as Apple has, offering what Apple is offering. Surely it isn't perfect (160GB still isn't enough; it picks up fingerprints like Gil Grissom; touch is only 16GB), but it's still ahead of the competition. Even still, if you beat any of those, you cannot rival iPod's popularity. Though popularity never directly affects how good a product performs its function, it's an important aspect of a business that, it seems, few of Apple's competitors can begin to approach. It seems to have reached the Xerox, Kleenex, Coke popularity, where the category's name becomes the product's.

Alas, these kinds of threads are never meant for thoughtful discussion.

This size is better suited for:
(a) A larger screen
(b) Holding for extended periods of time

This form factor is inevitable.

Am I alone in thinking that album flow is aweful? Call me a luddite, but give me a text list.

Command line Rules! Even with one arm I hate my mouse... VI Rules!!!

...sorry... off my meds...

GAD

So very true...

I will be getting a Classic 160 Gb by Saturday!

Most likely the iPod Touch is SSD only for two reasons:

1. Battery life. Such a large screen and bloated OS (full OSX, really?) really kills the battery enough as it is.

2. Size. We all know this one, it's all about being thin and sexy.

Sure it could easily be a 64GB SSD iPod, but it would be larger and cost $1000.

-Ed

Another factor for battery life is the wireless. Also, the ipod touch would be heavier with a hard drive.