Moderator: Thanas
Oh. I thought he was referring to those iTouch iPods for some reason. I didn't even bother looking at the specs for the newer standard iPods.Stark wrote:Zod, the 'Classic' iPods are now 80 and 160.
And if your dad broke an iPod by using it as a flash drive, that's deeply amusing. Most people just copy files to it, it worked no problem even before iTunes had an 'enable disk use' thing. People who ask that question just bother me because every time you plug an iPod in you get a new drive show up. Nah, I bet you can't just copy to it.
Yes. Just check the "Manually Manage" box in iTunes and it shows up as a FAT32 hard drive in Windows. Then you can use it as an external hard drive on Windows or Mac or Linux, even if the computer you connect it to doesn't have iTunes; but the initial set-up computer has to run iTunes so you can check that box.Hawkwings wrote:I was going to get a Nano too... Now it's ugly and fat and... ugly. yeah. What were they thinking on that one?
In other news, 160 GB?!? Can I use ipods for file storage?
So, buy an E70 or spend $30 more for an 8GB/$X less for a 4GB?Kane Starkiller wrote:If anyone is having doubts about buying iPhone I recommend this exhaustive review and comparison with Nokia E70 by Maddox.
Right now, I wish they just hadn't tried. IMHO, that's been one of the beauties of the iPod lineup - they don't throw a million and nine features together as if that necessarily makes for a better device. I don't want video, I don't need video, and if I had some video-ful desires, I'd buy a video-capable full-size iPod. I don't want that functionality clogging up my elegantly simple Nano.LMSx wrote:I think the only good way to show videos on a Nano would be to take the 2G, tilt it sideways, make it a little wider so it's a 16x9 proportion, have the screen cover the entire front, and use the iPhone/Touch touchscreen to interact. That would look at least decent AND be widescreen.
Very true. With the huge caveat that I've never held one, the new nano looks like they blew up the design just to cram in a video screen. All that just to work in a tiny 4x3 video screen at the very same time that most TV shows are going widescreen in HD.Howedar wrote:Right now, I wish they just hadn't tried. IMHO, that's been one of the beauties of the iPod lineup - they don't throw a million and nine features together as if that necessarily makes for a better device. I don't want video, I don't need video, and if I had some video-ful desires, I'd buy a video-capable full-size iPod. I don't want that functionality clogging up my elegantly simple Nano.LMSx wrote:I think the only good way to show videos on a Nano would be to take the 2G, tilt it sideways, make it a little wider so it's a 16x9 proportion, have the screen cover the entire front, and use the iPhone/Touch touchscreen to interact. That would look at least decent AND be widescreen.
I might change my tune when I see one, but that's my first impression.
The obvious problem with that is putting the iTouch screen on a Nano would jack up the price considerably.LMSx wrote:I think the only good way to show videos on a Nano would be to take the 2G, tilt it sideways, make it a little wider so it's a 16x9 proportion, have the screen cover the entire front, and use the iPhone/Touch touchscreen to interact. That would look at least decent AND be widescreen.
True, and I don't even think that would be big enough to display a decent video. I just look at the 3G nano and think "placeholder".General Zod wrote:The obvious problem with that is putting the iTouch screen on a Nano would jack up the price considerably.LMSx wrote:I think the only good way to show videos on a Nano would be to take the 2G, tilt it sideways, make it a little wider so it's a 16x9 proportion, have the screen cover the entire front, and use the iPhone/Touch touchscreen to interact. That would look at least decent AND be widescreen.
When the iPhone was selling for something like twice the production cost, I'm surprised people were lapping them up as much as they were. I guess Apple already got most of the customers who would pay that much.Praxis wrote:The best part of it all? The reaction of people who bought iPhones. Half the MacRumors community is praising Apple and preparing their money to buy the new $200 cheaper iPhones, and the other half of the MR community is screaming bloody murder.
Unless - and this is a VERY specific unless - you're George Hotz. In the end, he spent $600, labor and a few bucks for parts in exchange for a sports car and THREE iPhones...not to mention the prestige for being the first guy to successfully break the AT&T hold.General Zod wrote:Yet more proof that "early adopter" is a polite term for "sucker".
Hot damn. It's good to know my next iPod will be able to hold all my music at 320kbps.Praxis wrote: The iPod has been renamed to iPod Classic, and is thinner with an aluminum casing; now in silver and black, instead of white. That means the white iPod we all know is dead and gone. Same price points of $250 and $350 but instead of 30 and 80 GB they are 80 and 160 GB, and thinner than before. 40 hour battery life when playing music, woah. 7 hours video. That's the 160 GB model.
For person that spams as much as you do, you'd honestly do well to stop. No, this is not a concerned poster...this is from a mod that doesn't want another asskissing moron.Paradox244 wrote:Silly early adopters, low prices are for prudent consumers!
I found an article on CNN saying Jobs is giving $100 in credit for original iPhone purchasers. Did you get it?Dalton wrote:FUCK!! FUCKING COCKS!
Yep, $100 in store credit.Soontir C'boath wrote:I found an article on CNN saying Jobs is giving $100 in credit for original iPhone purchasers. Did you get it?Dalton wrote:FUCK!! FUCKING COCKS!
To all iPhone customers:
I have received hundreds of emails from iPhone customers who are upset about Apple dropping the price of iPhone by $200 two months after it went on sale. After reading every one of these emails, I have some observations and conclusions.
First, I am sure that we are making the correct decision to lower the price of the 8GB iPhone from $599 to $399, and that now is the right time to do it. iPhone is a breakthrough product, and we have the chance to 'go for it' this holiday season. iPhone is so far ahead of the competition, and now it will be affordable by even more customers. It benefits both Apple and every iPhone user to get as many new customers as possible in the iPhone 'tent.' We strongly believe the $399 price will help us do just that this holiday season.
Second, being in technology for 30-plus years, I can attest to the fact that the technology road is bumpy. There is always change and improvement, and there is always someone who bought a product before a particular cutoff date and misses the new price or the new operating system or the new whatever. This is life in the technology lane. If you always wait for the next price cut or to buy the new improved model, you'll never buy any technology product because there is always something better and less expensive on the horizon. The good news is that if you buy products from companies that support them well, like Apple tries to do, you will receive years of useful and satisfying service from them even as newer models are introduced.
Third, even though we are making the right decision to lower the price of iPhone, and even though the technology road is bumpy, we need to do a better job taking care of our early iPhone customers as we aggressively go after new ones with a lower price. Our early customers trusted us, and we must live up to that trust with our actions in moments like these.
Therefore, we have decided to offer every iPhone customer who purchased an iPhone from either Apple or AT&T, and who is not receiving a rebate or any other consideration, a $100 store credit towards the purchase of any product at an Apple Retail Store or the Apple Online Store. Details are still being worked out and will be posted on Apple's website next week. Stay tuned.
We want to do the right thing for our valued iPhone customers. We apologize for disappointing some of you, and we are doing our best to live up to your high expectations of Apple.
And you believe iSuppli...why? iSuppli is well known for being full of crap.Mad wrote:When the iPhone was selling for something like twice the production cost, I'm surprised people were lapping them up as much as they were. I guess Apple already got most of the customers who would pay that much.Praxis wrote:The best part of it all? The reaction of people who bought iPhones. Half the MacRumors community is praising Apple and preparing their money to buy the new $200 cheaper iPhones, and the other half of the MR community is screaming bloody murder.
Now if only the subscription rate could be improved (especially with discounts for data usage with family plans).
That is for pure components, there is actually alot more cost to a product than just components. It does not account for R&D, software, factory retooling, labor, advertising, logistics, royalties, power, packaging, post sales support and many other things that lay outside the components relm.Mad wrote: When the iPhone was selling for something like twice the production cost, I'm surprised people were lapping them up as much as they were. I guess Apple already got most of the customers who would pay that much.
Now if only the subscription rate could be improved (especially with discounts for data usage with family plans).
I was believing Bloomberg.com. The estimated margin would be in line with the gross margin reported by the makers of the BlackBerry, according to the article. (I don't have a BlackBerry either.)Praxis wrote:And you believe iSuppli...why? iSuppli is well known for being full of crap.
http://roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q ... 0D305.html
Scroll down to the iSuppli bit.
iSuppli has always been guesswork.
A number of those costs (R&D, software, factory retooling, etc) can't be included in the unit production costs since the per-unit costs would then vary depending on the number of units produced. They do affect how many units must be sold in order to break even, of course. I haven't seen any reports on whether the iPhone has broken even yet, but a $200 price drop certainly suggests that Apple feels it can either break even more quickly or make more money through volume by selling the iPhone at $399 at this point in time.Sam Or I wrote:That is for pure components, there is actually alot more cost to a product than just components. It does not account for R&D, software, factory retooling, labor, advertising, logistics, royalties, power, packaging, post sales support and many other things that lay outside the components relm.
And the Wii. There are problems with all 3 teardowns. According to iSuppli, the Wii is sold at a ~$100 profit, the 60GB PS3 at a ~$200 dollar loss and the 360 Premium above cost. All of those are wrong, the Wii and PS3 estimates in magnitude, and the 360 one in stating that the hardware is profitable.Mad wrote:It seems the iSuppli also did estimates for the X-Box 360 and PlayStation 3, and I don't recall there being any real controversy with those numbers.
And we know how far off the estimates were because...? (And the 360 supposedly went from a loss to a profit since it was introduced.)Xisiqomelir wrote:And the Wii. There are problems with all 3 teardowns. According to iSuppli, the Wii is sold at a ~$100 profit, the 60GB PS3 at a ~$200 dollar loss and the 360 Premium above cost. All of those are wrong, the Wii and PS3 estimates in magnitude, and the 360 one in stating that the hardware is profitable.
