thanks for these insights
On 10 Sep 2008, at 05:53, Larry Wanger wrote:
Good insights and thanks for sharing.
On Sep 9, 2008, at 9:35 PM, Esther wrote:
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.
