Larry,
It's not so much what's in a Nano that isn't in a Classic as the fact
that both the Nano and the iTouch were the models being refreshed at
this time. One difference is that these model iPods are using flash
memory instead of disk drives. This has some desirable features for
making music and movies skip-resistant (no moving parts in the disk
drive). However, what's probably more relevant in the context of
current Apple development is the lower power draw, and the overall
move to putting a full processor on an iPhone-like system. This is
not to say that a talking Classic can't be done, and this is only my
guess with no reference to Apple inputs. However, the flash drives are
the basis of the MacBook Air, and for a number of ultra-light portable
computers coming out from other manufacturers, and prices for flash
drives will be coming down. I think that's part of why an increase to
a 16 GB Nano was possible. My only comment, and again, this is pure
speculation on my part, is that the development of the small flash-
based players is progressing closely with the way Apple wants to see
the iPhone and other ultra-light mobile devices evolve, so these are
the first iPod players that a talking interface will be placed on.
I don't usually speculate this openly on a public list, but since you
and others have asked . . .
Cheers,
Esther
On Sep 9, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Larry Wanger wrote:
We may or may not be able to answer this but I'm curious what is in
the Nano that isn't in the classic that allows the Nano to do speech
output? It would seem that both have similar processing and ability
as they both play video I believe. Yet, several features in the Nano
aren't on the Classic. I'm mainly interested in why the classic
can't offer the speech option. I have a huge music collection and
the idea of taking what I want down to 16GB just doesn't work for me.
