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.
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). 
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).
I believe Tapeworm's post is
Oh, you funny guys . . .
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.
@jk98 wrote:
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.
I’m sure they would rather have you buy one 64GB card than have two 32GB cards.
And as far as the Zip, if it was 25% thicker, it would also be heavier. I like it just how it is, size-wise…it doesn’t weigh down my shirt when I clip it to the chest pocket.
@jk98 wrote:
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.
On a player the size on the Clip (or Zip) this increase would be huge , making the player more clunky-looking and therefore less “saleable”.
Will we be happy or disappointed in around two weeks? i decided not to buy the Fuze+ and Clip Zip. I hope Sandisk’s next player will not disappoint. They did a nice job with the Fuze and Clip+.
Will there even be a player released this month? I haven’t seen any groundhogs popping up…
