[monolith]

I don't imagine anything but a very small part of their market uses anything close to 160GB. This move makes sense for them. Thinner is more desirable. 120GB is a huge amount of music if it's in mp3 form.

 

[mdickerman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aris /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't imagine somebody needing more than 160gbs for a dap. please explain

Firstly, video takes up lots of space, so for folks who carry lots with them it's necessary.

Secondly, if you've got a huge music library, it's about having access to ANY of it, at any time, and not having to cull things periodically.

Lastly, there was a famous quote about "nobody needs more than 640k of memory"... more will always be desired and used.

 

[xxhotchikxx]

well the reason why the 160gig was discontinued was because the old 160 gig platter was fatter than the 80 gig. Apple had to make the 5g/6g Classics with two different sizes to ensure that the larger platter would fit the corresponding model. The hard drive manufacturers dont make a larger platter that would fit the new Classic. The iPod Classic is probably the lowest seller of all the iPods so it makes sense that they eliminate the fatter one.

Sent from my iPhone

 

[Jubei]

This really sucks. I was hoping that they would release a new iPod over 160G . . . as it is, there are not many choices for those of us who want to carry all of music with us.

 

[BigTony]

bummer, but i guesd 160gb was always a too much/too little size. mine is always maxed out, and its a pain deleting and copying new stuff over.

 

[Aevum]

im thinking about 2 theories,

the first one being that the 40gb differance between the 120 and the 160 dosnt justify a viable price differance, they would have to be around 20 bucks apart, and not 50-60 like the 80 to 160GB, its not a viable production differance,

one should always take in to account how much it costs to legaly fill a 160gb ipod, let alone the successor which would probobly be a 240gb ipod, it might be that they reached the conclusion of "theres no way, and the riaa isnt going to let us get away with this one"

 

[mrbrad]

I use all of my 160gb as it also is my music library backup. It is more than I or most people need as a portable DAP, but is is nice having all of my music available.

It is a little bit bigger than the 80, but not much. However, it is enough bigger to require a different case, which does add to manufacturing costs as well as costs for 3rd party vendors when making cases.

 

[mdickerman]

I predict a year from now Apple will introduce a 240G Classic when the production for a two platter (120G each) drive is up to speed. HD storage will far outpace solid state for at least a few more years. I don't buy the legal aspect - I've easily filled my 160G with a portion of my CD collection and I know there are plenty more folks with massive DVD collections as well.

 

[Jubei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdickerman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't buy the legal aspect - I've easily filled my 160G with a portion of my CD collection and I know there are plenty more folks with massive DVD collections as well.

Agree. Sure loads of people only own a few discs and have loads of pirated stuff, but I have 130G+ music already and still growing. All of them ripped from legitimately owned discs. And I like having some buffer - having to delete music to add new stuff is a major pain.

 

[Champloo]

I guess I should probably order a 160gb now before they all sell out.

Before I do so, have they made any other changes to the 120gb aside from the size and price? Is there any reason to take one over a 160gb?

 

[saronian]

Apple may have noticed how overproduced flash memory has become this year, and is anticipating affordable modules above 64GB in the next 6 months. In 12-18 months we'll see Apple drop disk based iPods and begin offering flash based version beyond 160GB.

Once consumers adjust to paying $250 for 120GB disk iPod, Apple will introduce 128GB flash based models for $300. It will be ultra-thin with an even larger screen. That's when the 160GB model will fade from memory.

Time marches on.

 

[salsadj]

Well, got my car broken into last night and those fargin bastages stole two things. My 80g iPod video and my car charger. So today I took a drive to my nearest apple store to buy a 160g as they're being discontinued and will become rare and lo and behold, there was a price drop. It's now $299 for the 160g classic.

 

[MoSXS]

Well, Toshiba made it clear their 240GB "iPod drives" wouldn't be ready for mass production until early next year.

Theres no way they'd be able to sell a 160GB iPod for $100 more than the 120GB model.

Even though the 160GB model had more advantages other than capacity, such as better battery life thanks to a bigger battery and more on-board memory (64MB of RAM versus 32MB), theres no way they could justify the price differences between the two if they were to stay at the old $249 and $349 price points.

At $249, this will probably be Apple's most profitable iPod. The components, other than the HDD, are dirt cheap to buy and put together now if they're using the same components they have been for the last year. The software will most likely be the previous generation firmware with an update for the "Genius" features. From a hardware standpoint, they will most likely make more money off of one sale of these than any other iPod. Though the touch will have the potential of "recurring revenue" from App Store sales.

People at this forum need to realize that we here look at things a little differently. If Apple had kept the 160GB model and priced at at $299, most of us here would have thought about what a great deal that was, considering the capacity and extra battery life that model has. But the average person is going to see it differently. They're going to see $269 after taxes (roughly) versus $322 after taxes, as well as a thicker unit that, in their eyes, only offers more capacity. Its more difficult to convince someone to spend more over $300 on something after taxes than a little over $250 after taxes. Just that whole number perception.

Plus the 120GB model offers the best of both worlds. You get higher capacity, but the thinner size and higher reliability of single platter drives.

If Apple doesn't kill off the iPod classic next September, we'll probably see 160GB "thin" and 240GB "thick".

I know I'll be buying a 120GB classic (have 80GB 5.5G currently) around next September. Wait until the event is announced, buy it, leave it in the box in anticipation. If they give a reasonable update, return it and make the choice whether to buy the new one then. If they kill the line, then I have a replacement for when my 80GB dies. Maybe buy 2 even.

I certainly hope they don't kill the iPod classic though. I know it will eventually become a niche product, but I love being able to go in with my 80GB and click "sync all" on every tab in iTunes. I'd have to wait for a 64GB or even 128GB iPod touch for that.

 

[MoSXS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saronian /img/forum/go_quote.gif Apple may have noticed how overproduced flash memory has become this year, and is anticipating affordable modules above 64GB in the next 6 months. In 12-18 months we'll see Apple drop disk based iPods and begin offering flash based version beyond 160GB. Once consumers adjust to paying $250 for 120GB disk iPod, Apple will introduce 128GB flash based models for $300. It will be ultra-thin with an even larger screen. That's when the 160GB model will fade from memory. Time marches on.

Not gonna happen while 128GB of flash memory still costs more even to big companies than the iPod itself currently costs

Maybe 2 or 3 years from now, but not any time soon.

 

[saronian]

Maybe, but with NAND memory prices dropping 20% per month and production capacity increasing dramatically, the demand may accelerate the cost/capacity ratio faster than we think.

It is nice to see the Apple store with refurbished Classic 160's at $279. Very tempting.