Toshiba's DTR technology hints at 240GB iPod drives by 2009

With Apple launching their new iPod classic, pretty much everybody is now aware that 1.8-inch hard disks max out at 160GB. Thing is, that disk -- be it from Toshiba or Samsung -- is actualy spinning a pair of 80GB platters at its core. So what would you say to Toshiba's announced 120GB single-platter drive? Hoozah, seems appropriate. The new prototype applies Discrete Track Recording (DTR) technology to boost the areal density of perpendicular magnetic recording (PMR) techniques by a full 50% -- that's 516Mb per square millimeter (333Gb per square inch). Tosh plans on mass producing the 1.8-inch and 2.5-inch (laptop) drives in 2009 which means that a 240GB "iPod HD" can't be too far away, eh Apple?

[Saikoro @ Sep 10th 2007 4:25AM]

That's pretty epic. I, along with most over people here, would enjoy an iPod we could almost use as a secondary hard drive.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Sep 10th 2007 5:05AM]

I don't care how big it is; if it's slow, transferring 200+ gigabytes of data to that thing at 1 or 2 mbit/s will be very painful. Lets just hope this drive can put on some performance.

Oh, and an iPOD with 1394 and USB wouldn't hurt either. Apple bring back firewire!

[DAZA @ Sep 10th 2007 5:27AM]

Performance generally equals heat. We don't want our little iPod's becoming mini-toasters now do we. It would also chew up battery life like no tomorrow. And the Firewire chipset adds to the cost of these devices, one of the reasons Apple has been able to continuously reduce the price of iPod's each year. Considering far more people have USB compared to Firewire, I think it made sense to ditch it.

[Dinraj @ Sep 10th 2007 6:30AM]

You dont get an 'iPod HD' just with a bigger hard drive. You need much more computing power to run HD. And not to forget a much long lasting battery for all that computing.

[Joe @ Sep 10th 2007 7:39AM]

Err... no you don't. You need chips designed specifically for that and not multi-purpose chips trying to do tons of math.

[riggs @ Sep 10th 2007 9:33AM]

actually i would enjoy an ipod that actually sounds good.


who am i kidding i wouldnt enjoy one at all.

[McDavies @ Sep 10th 2007 4:32AM]

I don't care how big they make it. I'm still going to complain it's to small.

[LiQuiD_FuSioN @ Sep 10th 2007 4:42AM]

Because of all that pirated music? jk. :P~

[UFG @ Sep 10th 2007 8:50PM]

That's what she said.

[nikster @ Sep 10th 2007 8:08AM]

160 GB is finally enough for all my music for a long time to come. I've stopped collecting 3 years ago at 50GB but now I can take it up again.

The next interesting size is going to be 1.6TB. At that point I can switch all my music to lossless formats. flacc or Apple Lossless.

[James Ollier @ Sep 10th 2007 4:41AM]

You will be able to put this in a PS3. This combined with PlayTV will make the PS3 one hell of a PVR.

[jared @ Sep 10th 2007 5:13AM]

The PS3 uses a 2.5" drive. Isn't this a 1.8" drive?

[James Ollier @ Sep 10th 2007 5:25AM]

Quote "Tosh plans on mass producing the 1.8-inch and 2.5-inch (laptop) drives in 2009"

[SimbaDogg @ Sep 10th 2007 5:26AM]

well, using the same logic, if they could increase the strage capacity by 50%, then toshibas 2.5" 320 GB drive that they just released could be upped to almost 500 gigs

[illingist trooper @ Sep 10th 2007 5:39AM]

Good God, that's awesome... but I don't think I need that in my iPod. I like lots of storage, but I've also found that of the three iPods I own, my favorite has been my black 8gig Nano - amazing battery life, and when I stepped down backward from my 30gig, upon hitting 'shuffle' I found I was hearing more music that I liked, more often, rather than the wild free-for-all that was a result of 'Drag it All On, All of it Fits" versus the 8gig forcing me to be a little more attentive.

[Andrew @ Sep 10th 2007 5:40AM]

160 is enough for me in an ipod. i'm more excited about more gbs in my laptop!

[Bazza @ Sep 10th 2007 5:41AM]

Can other devices use this form factor, or is this an apple exclusive drive? just asking cos' they are constantly referenced to it.

[Ratchet the Lombax @ Sep 10th 2007 5:58AM]

I believe anyone can use the drives, it's just as soon as anyone mentions a larger 1.8" drive "ooh imagine one of those in an iPod" is usually the first thing anyone says. Mostly because the iPod is the most well known thing that uses them. Anyway I think my new 160gb iPod will big enough for me for a while I have about 30,00 songs on it and still have 20gb left(I only use it for music). That being said if a 240gb iPod comes out I will most likely get one ;)

[Joe @ Sep 10th 2007 7:41AM]

Name one device that sells more hard drive.

Name one device other than an iPod that uses 1.8" drive.

Ok, now stfu.

[bc @ Oct 1st 2007 11:18AM]

@Joe

"Name one device that sells more hard drive."
Notebook PCs. I don't care how you slice it...there are more notebook PC's than iPods. And don't even get me started on the "find me a brand that's sold more laptops than iPods" because we can start with IBM, then Toshiba, then Dell, and move down the line.

"Name one device other than an iPod that uses 1.8" drive."
My laptop... Dell Latitude D430. Not to mention the Dell Latitude D420, the Lenovo ThinkPad X60, the ThinkPad X41

Do you still feel cool? Shall I go on?

[LurkingEngadgeteer @ Sep 10th 2007 5:42AM]

In my personal opinion I don't believe we're going to see any new future iPods which are bigger than 160gb. I'm starting to see Apple move off into the direction of making smaller and thinner iPods based on SSD technology.

There really is no point in having bigger capacity on iPods while still using platters. Not perhaps unless two major bottlenecks are overcome:
1. Read and Write Speeds: Using iPods for major storage is not feasible with Firewire 400, and the relatively low RPMS on these hard drives.
2. Reducing iPod thickness after each iteration, and with greater battery life.

Most consumers really don't need larger than 80gb of music on their iPods. That's why iPod Nanos are being sold in greater volume than iPod (classic). Consumers mainly want greater battery life, and smaller form factor, and the unique iPod interface. Requiring space greater than 80GB is less of a concern now.

[Ratchet the Lombax @ Sep 10th 2007 7:43AM]

While it's true that not a lot of people have more than say 60gb of music that they want to carry around with them the larger capacity ipods also play video. Although I don't use mine for video (the screen is too small for me)some people carry their entire movie/tv collection on them.

As far as the thickness goes I really can't tell too much difference in my old 40gb ipod and the new 160gb one. At least not enough to complain about plus there are other mp3 players out there that are thicker with less capacity.

Lastly just imagine the possibility of a 240gb ipod touch, ooh I get goosebumps just thinking about it.

***These are just my opinions and do not reflect the opinions of engadget or it's advertisers, your results may vary, please consult a physician if you experience any harmful side effects.***

[LurkingEngadgeteer @ Sep 10th 2007 12:07PM]

Ratchett: I totally agree with you that one of the good uses of large storage on an iPod could be video. But you've hit the nail on the head haven't you. iPod classic isn't suitable for watching video no matter how you put it.

The iPhone, and iPod touch are getting there, but to maintain that 11mm/8mm slim form factor, you have to use solid state drive technology. You can't use hard drive platter technology, without calling the next iPod, The iPod Phat Touch.

So for now, there's no point in Apple continuing with storage growth beyond 160gb using traditional hard drives. And instead I believe Apple will produce new iPods that use larger and larger capacity SSD.

[jasondefaoite @ Sep 11th 2007 11:05AM]

"Most consumers really don't need larger than 80gb of music on their iPods. That's why iPod Nanos are being sold in greater volume than iPod (classic)."

The price of the nano may have more to do with that.

[LurkingEngadgeteer @ Sep 11th 2007 12:30PM]

"The price of the nano may have more to do with that."

Really, you sure? Consider the cost comparison between the Nano and the Classic.

iPod Nano 8GB = $199.00
iPod Classic 80GB = $249.00

For an extra $52, you increase the capacity of our iPod by a factor of 10. And yet I'll bet you the Nano's will move faster than the classic. Why? The answer is mainly the Nano's size. Miniturisation is more important to most consumers than capacity.

And because of this, I believe future iterations of iPod will work towards producing smaller form-factors. And that may include doing away with extremely large capacities beyond 160gb if the only choice is using platter technology.

[eminemd12obie @ Sep 10th 2007 6:06AM]

when can we expect 1tb drives for ipods?

[exclusive @ Sep 10th 2007 7:13AM]

clean

[Pans @ Sep 10th 2007 7:44AM]

The drives can be used by anyone.

Seriously, Engadget, can you fire the clown that keeps writing these stupid summaries? He obviously cant properly write about these drives without dumping in Apple references every time.

[wetworker @ Sep 10th 2007 9:17AM]

That's what i was thinking.

[t-bone @ Sep 10th 2007 10:16AM]

Tell me, then, who else uses 1.8" drives? I'm sure something else uses them but iPods are the main targets.

[Homeboy @ Sep 10th 2007 7:46AM]

Perpendicular recording? YAWN!!

We have been reading about it for almost 3 years now but haven't seen the technology implemented on drives sold in the stores.

[nikster @ Sep 10th 2007 8:12AM]

WTF are you talking about, perpendicular recording is used for all larger capacity hard drives in mobile machines right now.

I am typing this on top of a readily available, perpendicular-recording drive, Hitachi 7K200.

[Jeff @ Sep 10th 2007 3:04PM]

I wonder what we'll get when this DTR technology is transfered to the 2.5" and 3.5" PMR drives.

A 320GB notebook drive and 1.5TB desktop drive? Maybe?

[Constable Odo @ Sep 10th 2007 7:45PM]

What confuses me is that aren't companies trying to move away from tiny hard drive storage devices and go to solid state storage. I still like the idea of hard drives since I've never had any problems with my iPod hard drive. Yet I've heard so many stories of hard drive failure. I think these drives would be nice to put in a laptop as additional storage or to make the laptop form factor smaller and lighter. But it would be a pain putting data on a 240 GB drive that only has a modest data transfer rate.

I would personally pay a premium to have a drive of this capacity in an iPod Touch, but I don't think it's likely to happen.

[Michael @ Sep 10th 2007 8:16PM]

I just can't wait to get my hands on the current 160GB iPod. 60GB wasn't enough for me from the day I bought it, and when 80GB hit, I already had too much music. Hell, 160GB won't fit everything I own because of my 60GB of audiobooks, but at least it will hold all of my music.

I don't doubt by the time a 240GB drive comes out that I'll need it as well.

Remember, you nay sayers that say it's already enough... people's collections constantly grow.


And for those who are asking what other device uses an 1.8" drive... the ZUNE! The almighty 30GB Zune that failed as soon as it launched! Imagine Microsoft coming back with a 240 GB Zune before Apple does, that incorporates their already there WiFi with Stereo Bluetooth (A2DP and AVRCP) AND a nice sized screen for viewing movies... ? What then Apple?


(I only use the iPod because it's the largest capacity mobile media player available, and because it works well with iTunes.)

[Slvrgun @ Sep 11th 2007 12:26AM]

I'm sick of the iCrap. The new ipod touch is just a gimped iphone and the new Classic and Nano are hardly upgrades to an aging design. The classic has more space, but it still has the same average audio quality and the Nano is now in new colors and it also has a gut. But I guess it doesn't matter. Lets all pitch in and buy more useless icrap and let Steve Jobs wipe his ass with our money.

[Max @ Sep 11th 2007 1:23AM]

Toshiba is really pushing the storage market fast. They just announced their 16 and 32gb SD cards a few weeks ago, now this.
--
Max ... Out!
http://www.cmyos.com free online operating system.