why the ipod touch/ipod-classic?

--On 9/20/2007 12:26 PM -0700 m.c. schraefel wrote:

> classic/touch: what's going on?
>
> is it a battery thing?
>
> why not put the touch interface on a big old harddrive?

Probably because it would be really big and bulky--quite possibly bigger
than any previous iPod, since the hard drive defines the size of the
Classic and I'd bet the touch interface would add at least a bit of
thickness.

> why mess around with great ui but sucky size on one device, and great
> capacity, sucky ui on another?

Because flash capacities aren't up to making an affordable 40/80/120GB
flash-based iPod, and hard drives aren't small enough for the touch form
factor.

Those of us who had to wait for the fourth-generation iPod to get enough
capacity for our music collections will likely have to wait for the third
or fourth generation of the iPhone/Touch series to have enough capacity
there.

I'm just glad Apple didn't decide to just go completely to flash and leave
large-collection folks hanging until flash capacities increase.

What I find somewhat disturbing are the reports I've seen that--compared to
the video iPod that preceded it--the Classic's interface is SLOW and
devotes a chunk of screen to eye candy of album covers rather than letting
the selection interface use the whole thing.

Dave

I have bought two classics each with 120G installed.  There is a very slight pause when entering or leaving coverflow, and the other interface aspects are not instant like the older ipods, but there are definitely not a problem.