Sandisk's next mp3 player?

Judging from Sandisk’s last two players, the next one might be disappointing as well. The Clip Zip doesn’t seem so bad, however it just doesn’t seem any better than the Clip+. Why doesn’t Sandisk put a door over the card slot?  Olympus puts a door over the card slot on their latest recorders with a card slot. Yes it will cost a bit extra to add this, however imo it is well worth it.

Tiger Direct just had a small _ 32 GB _  flash drive for $10 after rebate ($20 before rebate).  At those prices, absolutely no reason not to have 64 and 128 GB Clip Ultras . . . .

@miikerman wrote:

Tiger Direct just had a small _ 32 GB _  flash drive for $10 after rebate ($20 before rebate).  At those prices, absolutely no reason not to have 64 and 128 GB Clip Ultras . . . .

Sure there is…nobody would buy memory cards anymore! :laughing:

@marvin_martian wrote:


@gwk1967 wrote:

Wouldn’t surprise me if he did. JK98 is nothing if not persistent.


Some would even say incessant! :laughing:

Well, I was trying to be polite… :wink:

@gwk1967 wrote:


@marvin_martian wrote:


@gwk1967 wrote:

Wouldn’t surprise me if he did. JK98 is nothing if not persistent.


Some would even say incessant! :laughing:


Well, I was trying to be polite… :wink:

I mean no disrespect towards  JK98 , and I’m sure he knows that…he means well, and he is a nice guy, we simply disagree on some things, that’s all.:wink:

@marvin_martian wrote:


@miikerman wrote:

Tiger Direct just had a small _ 32 GB _  flash drive for $10 after rebate ($20 before rebate).  At those prices, absolutely no reason not to have 64 and 128 GB Clip Ultras . . . .


Sure there is…nobody would buy memory cards anymore! :laughing:

 

 

True–but you’re charging more for the ultra-capacity players.  ;)

@miikerman wrote:


@marvin_martian wrote:


@miikerman wrote:

Tiger Direct just had a small _ 32 GB _  flash drive for $10 after rebate ($20 before rebate).  At those prices, absolutely no reason not to have 64 and 128 GB Clip Ultras . . . .


Sure there is…nobody would buy memory cards anymore! :laughing:

 

 

True–but you’re charging more for the ultra-capacity players.  ;)


 

So would you buy a 64GB Clip for $200? lol

The 64GB devices from other manufacturers all have cost $350 or better (and I’ve had a couple of them), although they are more full featured.

@marvin_martian wrote:


@miikerman wrote:


@marvin_martian wrote:


@miikerman wrote:

Tiger Direct just had a small _ 32 GB _  flash drive for $10 after rebate ($20 before rebate).  At those prices, absolutely no reason not to have 64 and 128 GB Clip Ultras . . . .


Sure there is…nobody would buy memory cards anymore! :laughing:

 

 

True–but you’re charging more for the ultra-capacity players.  ;)


 


So would you buy a 64GB Clip for $200? lol

The 64GB devices from other manufacturers all have cost $350 or better (and I’ve had a couple of them), although they are more full featured.

For a 128 GB player, likely, yes, if it functioned well.  Let’s not forget that the original iPod (with a 40 GB hard drive, if I recall correctly) was $500.  

But there’s no need to go there:  there’s no need for the player to be $200.  As I wrote above, Tiger Direct was selling a 32 GB flashdrive for $10 after rebate ($20 before).  Putting the memory from 4 of those in a player would only cost $40 (or $80, ignoring the rebate).  Add that to a $50 Clip player cost and you have a 128 GB player for $90 (or $130), with the memory manufacturer getting the full price for its memory.

Some memory company, such as SanDisk, could make a killing from this.  

@miikerman wrote:


@marvin_martian wrote:


@miikerman wrote:


@marvin_martian wrote:


@miikerman wrote:

Tiger Direct just had a small _ 32 GB _  flash drive for $10 after rebate ($20 before rebate).  At those prices, absolutely no reason not to have 64 and 128 GB Clip Ultras . . . .


Sure there is…nobody would buy memory cards anymore! :laughing:

 

 

True–but you’re charging more for the ultra-capacity players.  ;)


 


So would you buy a 64GB Clip for $200? lol

The 64GB devices from other manufacturers all have cost $350 or better (and I’ve had a couple of them), although they are more full featured.


For a 128 GB player, likely, yes, if it functioned well.  Let’s not forget that the original iPod (with a 40 GB hard drive, if I recall correctly) was $500.  

 

But there’s no need to go there:  there’s no need for the player to be $200.  As I wrote above, Tiger Direct was selling a 32 GB flashdrive for $10 after rebate ($20 before).  Putting the memory from 4 of those in a player would only cost $40 (or $80, ignoring the rebate).  Add that to a $50 Clip player cost and you have a 128 GB player for $90 (or $130), with the memory manufacturer getting the full price for its memory.

 

Some memory company, such as SanDisk, could make a killing from this.  

Let’s be honest though…while I agree with you that in theory there’s no need for the player to cost $200, I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that they’d charge less than $200.

They charged $120 for the 16GB Fuze+, after all…:dizzy_face:

Hope springs eternal.   :slight_smile:   And just think of the corner of the market that would be captured.  

And it gets even better:  Fry’s Electronics has a sale today on a _ 64 GB _ flash drive for only $30, with no rebate required.  Again, take the memory from 2 of those as the storage basis for a player and you have a 128 GB jukebox player with only $60 for the storage cost.  Absolutely do-able.    

@miikerman wrote:

And it gets even better:  Fry’s Electronics has a sale today on a _ 64 GB _ flash drive for only $30, with no rebate required.  Again, take the memory from 2 of those as the storage basis for a player and you have a 128 GB jukebox player with only $60 for the storage cost.  Absolutely do-able.    

Then you’re assuming the developers can figure out how to handle a database for a player with that much capacity…a task they failed at with the Fuze+ with a theoretical maximum of 48GB.:wink:

I have faith that the SanDisk developers can figure it out.  The Rockbox devs have, and it ain’t rocket science.  

@miikerman wrote:

I have faith that the SanDisk developers can figure it out.  The Rockbox devs have, and it ain’t rocket science.  

Hmmph! The same could be said for gapless playback (among others). :confounded:

Tapeworm wrote:


Miikerman wrote:

I have faith that the SanDisk developers can figure it out.  The Rockbox devs have, and it ain’t rocket science.  


Hmmph! The same could be said for gapless playback (among others). :confounded:

I believe Tapeworm’s post is 


Oh, you funny guys  . . . 

@miikerman wrote:

Oh, you funny guys  . . . 

Just trying to

 

:stuck_out_tongue:

I could be wrong, but it seems to me the problem is that Sandisk keeps reusing the same code, possibly to the extent that the latest model (the Clip Zip) is running on what amounts to a beefed-up c200 firmware, with some of the same 10(?)-year old limitations. If they do introduce a new model, it’s probably time to start from scratch on the software.

@gwk1967 wrote:

I could be wrong, but it seems to me the problem is that Sandisk keeps reusing the same code, possibly to the extent that the latest model (the Clip Zip) is running on what amounts to a beefed-up c200 firmware, with some of the same 10(?)-year old limitations. If they do introduce a new model, it’s probably time to start from scratch on the software.

You are absolutely right.  It especially has needed a “refresh” since memory capacities and capabilities have grown…    

@gwk1967 wrote:

I could be wrong, but it seems to me the problem is that Sandisk keeps reusing the same code, possibly to the extent that the latest model (the Clip Zip) is running on what amounts to a beefed-up c200 firmware, with some of the same 10(?)-year old limitations. If they do introduce a new model, it’s probably time to start from scratch on the software.

Apparently a while back they were asking on their Facebook page if people would be interested in an Android-powered Sansa player. I didn’t see it myself, because I am anti-Facebook, but several people reported seeing it. So we’ll see what happens, if anything.