Sandisk's next mp3 player?

@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.

Any rumors about Sandisk’s next player? Will it be very similar to the original Fuze, or will it be much better?

With flash memory so cheap now, I hope the basic model has at least 16GB built in, and is under $70. I guess it probably won’t have HD radio, more than one card slot, or battery life over 40 hours.

@jk98 wrote:

Any rumors about Sandisk’s next player? Will it be very similar to the original Fuze, or will it be much better?

With flash memory so cheap now, I hope the basic model has at least 16GB built in, and is under $70. I guess it probably won’t have HD radio, more than one card slot, or battery life over 40 hours.

I think you are correct.

I don’t quite understand Sandisk’s mp3 player strategy when it comes to battery life. Its players are generally well liked, except for the battery life. Why doesn’t Sandisk use a larger battery in its players? Doubling the battery life won’t make the players that much larger. I think for a player like the Clip Zip, using a battery with double the capacity might only make the player around 20-25% thicker. Having a Fuze with 40 hours of actual  battery life(stated battery life around 50 hours) would make it so much more useful than having just 20 hours.

Having two card slots would also greatly increase its flexibility.