backtop


Print 91 comment(s) - last by rdeegvainl.. on Sep 9 at 8:54 AM


The new iPod touch with Derek Zoolander on screen  (Source: Apple)

New iPod classic in its usual two colors  (Source: Apple)

New video capable iPod nanos  (Source: Apple)

iPod shuffle in new colors  (Source: Apple)
Now with a new iPod touch

Apple today revamped its entire iPod lineup and introduced an old-yet-new model – the iPod touch. The new iPod touch is essentially an iPhone stripped of its GSM and phone capabilities.

The device features the same 3.5-inch screen as the iPhone with an 8mm thickness. Two memory capacities are available – 8GB and 16GB. Apple also employs the same multi-touch user interface as the iPhone in the new iPod touch, including Cover Flow.

The iPod touch retains the 802.11b/g Wi-Fi capabilities of the iPhone. Users can connect the iPod touch to home and public wireless networks. The iPod touch also features a couple of built in applications, as with the iPhone.

Safari and YouTube applications are preinstalled for wireless web browsing and video watching.  Apple also installs the calendar, contacts, clock, calculator and photo applications. Essentially, the iPod touch is what the iPhone is without a SIM card inserted.

iPod touch

Capacity
Price

8GB
$299
16GB
$399

The existing iPod models are completely new, with new iPod shuffle’s, nano and regular. Apple finally named the standard hard disk based iPod’s – the iPod classic. The new iPod classic features a completely metal design and thinner in size compared to the outgoing model.

Apple increased hard drive capacity with the new classic – 160GB is the new flagship, with 80GB being the base size.  Battery life for the new iPod classics improve, with up to 40 hours for audio and 7 hours for video.

iPod classic

Capacity
Price

80GB
$249
160GB
$349

Apple’s iPod nano is completely new as well, in the form of a new “fatty” nano. The new iPod nano features video playback capabilities on its 2-inch QVGA display. Apple offers the new iPod nano in 4GB and 8GB capacities and in five different colors – black, silver, green, blue and RED. New games are also preinstalled on the new iPod nano, including Vortex and Sudoku.

iPod nano

Capacity
Price

4GB
$149
8GB
$199

Both the new  iPod classic and nano feature a new user interface with Cover Flow.

Lastly, is the iPod shuffle refresh. The iPod shuffle maintains the same design as the outgoing model, but now with new colors and a RED model. New iPod shuffle colors include blue, teal and an aqua green.

iPod shuffle

Capacity
Price

1GB
$79

Expect the new iPods to show up in retail this week.

In the mean time, Microsoft's 30GB Zune is now priced at $199. Microsoft announced the price cut late last night on the ZuneInsider blog. With the release of Apple's new iPods and the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store, a $50 price cut may not be enough to attract buyers to the Zune.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By Rodinx on 9/5/2007 2:54:09 PM , Rating: 1
That's pretty nice but why didn't they go with the bigger drives..kind of stupid if this thing is supposed to support video.




By Moishe on 9/5/2007 2:56:14 PM , Rating: 1
I think the ipod touch is probably flash based, which would explain the storage sizes... I am really shocked at the size of the 160GB ipod classic... that is a huge drive.

It's almost to the point that you will need to reduce the font on the marketing materials just to write the number of songs it can hold :)


RE: Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By IcY18 on 9/5/2007 2:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
They couldn't use a regular hard disk like iPod classic because they need the room for the touch screen so they have to use flash drives.


RE: Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By hlper on 9/5/2007 3:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
That's really the wrong way to look at it though because they could just make it the size it needs to be in order to accommodate a hard drive. Other companies are able to do it (e.g Archos 605wi-fi). I think there is a definite market for it, especially if you put the iPod name on it. I would be in that market.


RE: Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By Rodinx on 9/5/2007 3:20:03 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah I dont think the size is a valid excuse, this thing would have been sweet with 80 gb Hard drive..I think they are just using flash so they can use the same casing, hardware, etc.. as the Iphone


By othercents on 9/5/2007 3:28:37 PM , Rating: 5
Size doesn't really matter since it wouldn't add much to the thickness. The biggest reason why they used Flash instead of a HD was for run time. Right now the biggest drain on the battery is the screen, but if you had a HD you would be draining the battery with both. The best option for any device like this is to have an SD slot to add more memory or have multiple videos on different SD cards.

Other


By enlil242 on 9/5/2007 3:54:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think they are just using flash so they can use the same casing, hardware, etc.. as the Iphone


And, you have to think like apple. Get it out now with the flash drive, using the same casing as the iPhone and have something for "next year." I sure bet that the classic will be replaced with a "touch" interface version.


By Oregonian2 on 9/5/2007 6:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think they are just using flash so they can use the same casing, hardware, etc.. as the Iphone


I might have thought that except that the casings are different. The iPod touch is smaller than the iPhone.

The've probably borrowed most if not all the non-GSM-phone hardware circuit design and the software though, and the software is flash-filesystem based. And that's where I'd guess the non-drive version came from. Maybe later they'll put in a hard drive filesystem but leave that for next year's intro of new devices. For the quick turn-around (recall iPhone was late and the iPod touch is still only "this month") keeping changes to a minimum is probably what they were after to get things out. Still did change the case though (and getting rid of the phone "proper" allowed it to get smaller).


RE: Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/5/2007 4:01:20 PM , Rating: 1
Actually if it had a harddrive it would be much more expensive. Think about it- the iPhone has a case that was made specifically for it. If apple then releases an ipod with the same case and gut electronics (touch screen+wi-fi), it probably brings the cost down quite a bit because more are being machined, and they can purchase parts in larger quantities.

analogy:
yeh- your cat litter doesn't fit in a normal grocery bag, and they could make a bag it does fit in- but you'd have to pay for it...


By raejae on 9/5/2007 4:42:52 PM , Rating: 5
Ummm... They aren't using the same case.

iPhone dimensions: 115x61x11.6mm
iPod touch dimensions: 110x61.8x8mm

Reading before posting. Always a good idea. ;)


RE: Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By weskurtz0081 on 9/6/2007 5:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
I am not sure if you are aware of this but, flash is MUCH MUCH more expensive than hard drives. Flash is running around $10 a gb or so last I checked, where a notebook drive is probably closer to $1 a gb.


By oab on 9/7/2007 7:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
iPods don't use notebook drives.

Notebook Drive: 2.5" SATA/PATA
iPod: 1.8" micro-drive

The 1.8" drives are used in some stupid small notebooks like Toshiba's now discontinued libretto.


RE: Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By LCC2286 on 9/5/2007 3:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm assuming you can stream videos from a home server


By hlper on 9/5/2007 3:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
Probably only if the new version of iTunes will do it (i.e. not bloody likely). This is an iPod after all.


RE: Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By GoatMonkey on 9/5/2007 3:25:06 PM , Rating: 5
Why would I want to stream video from a home server to a little tiny screen like that when my TV is right there?


By TomZ on 9/5/2007 4:39:15 PM , Rating: 5
Because squinting is fun?


RE: Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By AndreasM on 9/5/2007 5:07:09 PM , Rating: 5
Because the TV isn't there, as you are streaming through the internet while sitting in a cafe.


RE: Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By RjBass on 9/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By hinchesk on 9/6/2007 8:53:51 AM , Rating: 4
I'm sure we all have bathrooms without tv's where, despite wanting to admit it, we'd all be happy to have some tv to pass the time.


By jay401 on 9/6/2007 9:05:03 AM , Rating: 2
Nope not all. Some of us just get in there, take care of business, and get out. Some of us will never understand the desire or need to pass time sitting in the bathroom.


By subhajit on 9/5/2007 3:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
I guess one reason to go with Flash Storage is to keep the power consumption in check. The big screen will suck up a lot of juice, not to mention the multi touch screen which certainly needs a lot of processing horsepower to work properly.


RE: Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By plinden on 9/5/2007 4:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike the pattern of listening to audio, you tend not to watch the same video over and over again (unless you're a LotR fan) so the idea is to just sync the videos you haven't seen or the ones you really want to see in the near future. So a few hours of video really is all you would have on one.


By kelmon on 9/5/2007 4:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's an argument that makes sense but I can't help thinking that if my iPod that I bought last year can hold 80GB, mostly for video, that a device even better at playing video ought to have at least a similar capacity. Choice is a wonderful thing and I can pack quite a bit of a video collection onto the current (sorry, last generation) iPod so it just seems odd. Probably not a real issue but odd nonetheless.


RE: Why didn't they go with the hardrive?
By Celestyan on 9/5/2007 4:58:21 PM , Rating: 4
I honestly cant believe they have done this. This is the worst decision apple has made in a long time.

We have all been expecting this IPod touch for at least the last year. I havent seen one in the flesh but I consider the IPhone fine example of form over function. When it comes to actually performing its job you're not telling me you can tap out a text message anywhere near as fast as I can on my N95.

I'm getting really fed up with all of these companies f&^ing up products with great potential. N95 itself being a prime example.

As a phone I love it. Sure its a tad buggy but I keep updating it and its getting there. 5MP camera BUll$1t! its so over compressed its not as good as a 3 year olf 2MP sony snapper I use on night out. I thought it had potential as an MP3 player now they pulled their head out of their a$$ and put a proper 3.5mm jack on it but the amount of hiss present makes it unbearable!

Next we have sony who have been owning apple for years on 2 fronts:
1) Battery Life
2) The ability to downsize music as you transfer it (a feature I am outraged itunes STILL doesnt support).

What did sony do? Got greedy trying to sell their own file format / music store and crippled their entire product line by forcing people for use their dire SonicStage which is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

So I thought microsft might have the anwser with Zune. Something to just synchronise with media player (Which I dont care what you say far outshines itunes as a media player in every respect.) I figured it may not be quite as nifty as an Ipod but media player does support downsizing during transfer. What do they do? Not only fail to release a version bigger than 30gb but WORSE still havent released it outside the US!

I have had a 40gb 3rd gen Ipod for about 4 years now and am ready to upgrade as I need more space for my growing music collection. I was waiting for the fabled touch screen IPod with its "entire front being a widescreen display"... finally something worth upgrading to / using to watch video and look what they've done!

Some half baked Iphone rehash with no memory! I mean for crying out loud surely you would just make it bigger to accomodate a hard drive and suitably larger battery! YOU JUST WOULD WOULDNT YOU!

What useless piece of junk.

Cant anybody verify the Zune can just sync with Media Player rather than some dodgy proprietary software? I'm starting to think importing a Zune and sticking a 100gb hard drive in it is the best option!


By peritusONE on 9/6/2007 8:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cant anybody verify the Zune can just sync with Media Player rather than some dodgy proprietary software?

It cannot sync with WMP11, although the Zune Marketplace software you have to use is basically a rebadged WMP11. Right down to the organization in the left pane to the word-for-word menus and settings boxes, it's the same.

I've never had any problems with the Zune software, I think it's fine. I thought iTunes was perfectly fine as well when I used to own a Nano, so I guess I'm pretty easy to please.


By oab on 9/7/2007 8:04:44 AM , Rating: 2
So, you are upset that Apple finally released the widescreen full touch-screen iPod?

I'm glad to see you are outraged, OUTRAGED, how DARE Apple not allow you to re-code your MP3 files on-the-fly to lower bitrates so that it will save space on your iPod. That's a crime worse than Michael Vick for sure.

You do realize that there are better music players then the iPod right, that were already available for years? They just didn't have the "coolness" to them that the iPod did.

If you want a device that synchs with media plyer, and plays videos, has longer battery life and storage space, there are a lot of competing products on the marketplace from other manufacturers that will do just what you want. Archos, Creative and Sandisk are the big 3.

Share and enjoy! (now go stick your head a pig)


Decisions....Decisions
By Dianoda on 9/5/2007 3:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
What to do now? Get a ipod classic that will fit a king-size music collection and a ridiculous amount of video, or get the sexy wifi internet-enabled ipod touch?

How am I supposed to make that decision? Of course the classic makes sense from a battery life, price and capacity standpoint, but damn, the touch is everything I liked about the iphone, cheaper and available in twice the capacity.

I guess it comes down to how useful the wifi browsing will be. And with no laptop and free wifi all over campus (lucky me), probably pretty useful.

I need some opinions, classic or touch, point and counterpoint, any takers?




RE: Decisions....Decisions
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/5/2007 3:14:21 PM , Rating: 1
Touch on the iPhone isn't what it's cracked up to be and I have fairly skinny feminine fingers. I'd go with the classic.

I like the Wi-Fi, and I like the Flash base, but I hate the touch screen.


RE: Decisions....Decisions
By Hare on 9/5/2007 3:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Touch on the iPhone isn't what it's cracked up to be and I have fairly skinny feminine fingers. I'd go with the classic.

My experience is quite the opposite. It works really well and the responsiveness of the UI is something I'm not used to. It works well and it's really fast. Much faster than other pda/smartphone devices I've used.


RE: Decisions....Decisions
By ivanv4 on 9/5/2007 3:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
OMG!OMG! Brain splitting. Can't decide. Wifi/touch screen but 16GB or 160GB clasic video Ipod?

How good is the touch functionality of the IPhone?
How long the battery from the touch ipod between charges will last?


RE: Decisions....Decisions
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/5/2007 4:01:20 PM , Rating: 1
Given the nature of the type of touch screen it uses its going to have a shorter battery life by far.

Maybe the iPhone I played with was defective but I found it unable to keep up with the speed of my fingers. (Even my blackberry has trouble sometimes)


RE: Decisions....Decisions
By raejae on 9/5/2007 4:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
iPod touch battery life: 22 hours music, 5 hours video
iPod classic 80gb: 30 hours music, 5 hours video
iPod classic 160gb: 40 hours music, 7 hours video.

I'd bet a fair amount that the difference in battery life has more to do with the amount of space dedicated to a battery than the screen itself. Screens by themselves don't eat energy, the backlights that make them visible do.


RE: Decisions....Decisions
By ascian5 on 9/6/2007 5:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
I also had to make this decision and bit the bullet for the touch. You can of course, turn off the screen, and I'll bet my bottom dollar that Apple quoted the music battery life with exactly that scenario. For the price and small storage I really really really didn't want to go with the Touch, but I did. I figured that
-even if I only use 10gb for music, that's still an awful lot of songs, and it's not like I'm going to go through them all in a day.
-Secondly, though I have about 10x that many MP3, the convenience is nice, but how feasible is it to really have my entire collection with me? Nice, but not necessary.
-Thirdly, I have seen too many iPods sent in for repair due to hard drive issues, like morons jogging with them. Flash is more versatile, and with a mobile device, just makes more sense. I'd like to throw it in the backpack and take it biking without worry.

Plus they look cool.
Now we just need the cases and screen protectors.


RE: Decisions....Decisions
By ascian5 on 9/6/2007 5:29:58 AM , Rating: 2
And of course the wifi seems to be really handy. Handier if we could transfer music between units and from our PCs/Macs, but I imagine that will come next year with the hotly debated hard drive. I've been holding off on pulling the trigger for an mp3 player for years however, and can wait no longer.


RE: Decisions....Decisions
By AmbroseAthan on 9/5/2007 4:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't feel like the touch screen is a huge selling point; fun and nice, but long as it works, who cares. I think the question is if you will be using your iPod for videos/movies that will take advantage of the widescreen, or will you be mainly using it for music.

Personally, I would want to go for the Touch, as I would love to have that widescreen used for movies and such, plus the WiFi would be great at random hotspots while bored. I currently only use a 4GB Nano and have no trouble keeping music (most ripped at 256kbs or higher) I want on it for trips, and this would give me plenty of room for videos to use. I don't find it inconvient to keep going back to the cmoputer to swap files between trips/days.


RE: Decisions....Decisions
By kelmon on 9/5/2007 4:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
Based on the statement that you don't have a laptop and wireless networks are available for free I'm inclined to suggest the Touch unless you have a big video collection that you need to have with you at all times. The Wifi browsing will likely be quite useful if you don't have alternatives to this now and 16GB capacity is fine for a reasonable music collection and some video to keep you going for a fair few hours.


Not quite what I was hoping for
By hlper on 9/5/2007 2:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad, I wanted the iPod touch to be a hard drive based player. It honestly does too much for me to be satisfied with such a small memory (max 16GB), or I would probably have bought it. I think I may look to Archos and their new 605wi-fi now. It has pretty much all of the features and 30/80/160GB capacities.




RE: Not quite what I was hoping for
By Hare on 9/5/2007 3:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It has pretty much all of the features and 30/80/160GB capacities.
Yeah, like the multitouch screen and performance for actually usable web browsing...

Let's be honest. The iPod touch is pretty awesome. The only problem that I can think of is that you can't really use it without looking at the screen (no more pocket use etc.) I already have a hefty smartphone (E90) so I'm not going to buy the ipod touch but if I didn't have my phone I really would consider it just for the web browsing experience + video.


RE: Not quite what I was hoping for
By hlper on 9/5/2007 3:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
I still think the Archos is a valid example of how this could work with a hard drive. I am not saying the Apple does not do some things better, but the differences are not huge. My point was that for those of us who wanted WiFi, and touch screen, and a hard drive we will have to go elsewhere.

quote:
Yeah, like the multitouch screen and performance for actually usable web browsing...


The archos has a touch screen that works well and looks very good(though I do like the Apple multitouch better), as well as a few basic navigation buttons you could use if you can't see the screen.

The Archos also has 802.11b, 802.11g just like the iPod touch, so it should serf the web just fine (though it requires a $30 plug in for the opera browser).

The screen is bigger, and it has a hard drive. However, battery life with the Archos is not great.


RE: Not quite what I was hoping for
By kelmon on 9/5/2007 4:47:36 PM , Rating: 3
I've seen this comment before about wishing to use the device in your pocket. Have you considered a remote control? I use one for my regular iPod for when I'm cycling and that really does the job without needing me to look like a bit of a perv having a fiddle in my pocket.


RE: Not quite what I was hoping for
By bkm32 on 9/5/2007 5:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
rdeegvainl says it best,

quote:
Why would someone want a remote control for something that is the size of a remote control?

It doesn't make sense, If Chewbaca lived on Endor, you must acquit!
quote>


By kelmon on 9/6/2007 11:07:13 AM , Rating: 2
The easy answer is if you don't have easy access to the device. The remote control is on the headphones cable so that's always handy and offers the controls that you need. Problem solved.


By rdeegvainl on 9/7/2007 2:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
I have an IPOD and I love it! Not actually hard to love the IPOD when your last media player was one of those MD using Sony things that used connect.
The two biggest improvements for this thing that would just make it awesome, especially for the ipod touch.
4 small buttons in either the top or side of the IPOD, not at the top but actually in the metal siding.
3 of them for cycling songs without looking, just have a |<<, >/||, >>|, you know these buttons could be small the same shape and smoothly integrated into the device while simultaneously keeping in line with the overall design.
Then separate from them, probably on the same side just distanced and by itself, a button to turn off the screen and touch, to save battery life for when i am just using it to listen to music. The positioning of these buttons, 3 on one side, and 1 on the other would also you know which is which, just based on feel. No Remote, No gimmicks, No problem.
I would like that on my regular IPOD as well. both of these implementations could be very minimalist and savvy, fitting the IPOD STYLE, which i don't really care about any more than if it gets me the features i want.


RE: Not quite what I was hoping for
By OPR8R on 9/5/2007 6:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I was expecting too much. I hoped we'd get the news that the new iPod would have a 32GB flash drive and the new (touch) interface, for about $299. Coming from 30GB, 8GB is not really useful, and $400 is bit too expensive for a music player that can hold (a claimed) 3,500 songs- though I doubt you could get that many songs on a 16GB drive.

On the "classic" front, longer battery life and a metal case isn't exactly inspiring.

I'm sure Apple was banking on many owners of previous versions of iPods upgrading to one of the new versions. If many other owners are like I am, that won't be happening on a large scale. Hopefully for iPod, Apple didn't make a mistake and hold back on too much this time around....


Apple's logic escapes me
By marsbound2024 on 9/5/2007 4:49:36 PM , Rating: 1
Ok so wouldn't it seem more logical to put a hard drive on the iPod touch (heck... even 30GB or 60GB or something if one was worried about acoustics and/or reliability, battery life and etc) instead of an 8GB or 16GB flash drive? The reason I ask this is because the iPod touch has the capability to listen in on a song being played and has WiFi connectivity that gives one the option to download that song being played. Now having more storage space means that the user has more songs that he or she can download, thus increasing revenues for the Apple iTunes Store? Oh and since it has WiFi, why not an email application?

Personally, I do not see why there would be very many people willing to buy this 8GB model for $300 when you can have ten times the storage for $250 and simply Google lyrics (tho I admit obviously this fails for instrumentals and the like) you hear in a song either on your laptop, PDA, phone or desktop (that most people already have... at least ONE of these) when you get back home if you are that concerned with being able to download music you hear on the fly? And extending from this, if users have written down the lyrics and such and GET HOME... they can always choose to pirate the music instead of having to make an on-the-spot decision (I am assuming) whether or not to download the song they have listened to at Starbucks or wherever from the iTunes store.

Oh and the iPod nano is a bit ugly. It reminds me too much of the ongoing obesity epidemic and I am sorry if it just strikes me as hilarious thinking about seeing an obese male or female with one of these fatty, out of proportion, iPod nanos... Hey! Talking about anthropomorphic technology! Certainly a good reason why Apple puts the 'i' in 'iPod.'




RE: Apple's logic escapes me
By PrimarchLion on 9/5/2007 6:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't read all the info about the ipod touch, but I doubt they include this feature:

It would be really cool if you could use wifi to stream any movies or songs you own from itunes anywhere that you go, that would decrease the need for storage memory. Even better if they allowed you to download anything you want via the browser , then you could store stuff on the internet, which requires less memory on the touch.

Does someone who is more interested in the new ipods than me know if you can do this? Sorry about the poor grammar, I'm in a hurry =)


RE: Apple's logic escapes me
By marsbound2024 on 9/5/2007 6:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
If they don't offer something like that now, it should definitely be considered for a future firmware update. I could certainly see the 8GB or 16GB much more worthwhile if the iPod Touch could be configured to act as an extension of a user's home PC. It can access the music library on your PC and stream the music directly to your iPod Touch from a nearby wireless router (say in Starbucks). You could also instruct where you wanted your songs to download to. Either the iPod Touch or your home PC or both. I also think there should be something where iPod Touch users can share music (kinda like the Zune) since it has WiFi. It'd also be neat if users could share clips from videos they might be watching (say up to fifteen or thirty seconds of a movie or other clip). Sometimes I am watching a funny part of a movie or other video and want to show people who aren't directly beside me... btw, I wonder if this thing is capable of instant messaging? If the iPhone is, I would assume this is... however I am unsure either way.


RE: Apple's logic escapes me
By Oregonian2 on 9/5/2007 7:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
They do have their youtube interface, and that's streaming of sorts.


RE: Apple's logic escapes me
By oab on 9/7/2007 8:15:12 AM , Rating: 2
The new iPod has a web browser, and there are streaming programs that let you stream files over the internet as flash video.

Apple may offer it (ala. AppleTV), but MOST of Apples fanbase doesn't really care for that stuff.

And it would kill the battery even faster. Internet + video playing + backlight? You would not even get close to the 5hrs promised by Apple like that.


RE: Apple's logic escapes me
By Hare on 9/6/2007 2:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh and since it has WiFi, why not an email application?

Because they want you to buy the iPhone if the features on the iPod are not enough. Apple is quite good at that. They definately don't want to give out too much to avoid two similar products.


Cupertino liar
By Pirks on 9/5/2007 3:24:45 PM , Rating: 1
I love how this fruity clown lies and deceits people. Oh, look -> "First time EVER on a music player to have a browser built in!" -> http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/05/steve-jobs-live...

How about Archos 704 which had all this Wi-Fi and Web Browser stuff way before you made your new ipody toy, huh?

Afraid to talk about REAL competition, Mr. Cupertino Clown?




RE: Cupertino liar
By hlper on 9/5/2007 3:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
Except the Archos 704 is so big you might as well just grab your television on the way out the door.


RE: Cupertino liar
By hlper on 9/5/2007 4:11:23 PM , Rating: 1
Funny that I got rated down, even though the thing he is saying did everything the new iPod does comes in a briefcase. Hardly a good comparison. It's like a laptop with extremely limited functionality.


RE: Cupertino liar
By Pirks on 9/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Cupertino liar
By hlper on 9/5/2007 4:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your opinion about Archos 704 is just your personal opinion.


My opinion is only that something that is 5 inches x 7.2 inches, and weighs in at 1.5 pounds is hardly in the same class (such as portable media players are concerned) as the iPod, which is only 4.3 inches by 2.4 inches and just over 4 ounces.

Big deal you can stuff that much technology into something the size of a small laptop. Laptop makers have been doing that and more for years, that does not make them convenient portable media players.

As for the rating question, this is a place for opinions. If those opinions are based on the facts, as mine were, then it is uncalled for to say it's not worth reading. Right?


RE: Cupertino liar
By Pirks on 9/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Cupertino liar
By Oregonian2 on 9/5/2007 6:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
If I recall right, he said the first "music player" and that it had the "best browser among mobile devices" or something like that (which necessitates other devices having browsers). May just be name-games as to what's a "music player".

But as to that other wi-fi behemouth that's 7" x 5" or some such, that certainly isn't a "music player".

My cell phone has a "browser" but it sucks. Not that safari is all that great, it's at least in the IE/FF class of browsers, even if at the bottom of the list.


RE: Cupertino liar
By Pirks on 9/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Cupertino liar
By Oregonian2 on 9/7/2007 7:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
If you're talking to me (your posting is attached to mine), I agree with you. Note my comment about being a word definition game. I was just trying to explain what they were trying to say -- not to justify it. iPods (and associated iTunes) is mostly known for music, not the other features, so I understand their position even if stretching things a good bit.

Note that my KRZR cell phone (that I mentioned) plays music too, and does it in a better manner than iPods. It can play in stereo through bluetooth wirelessly to my headphones (with A2DP support!).


RE: Cupertino liar
By PaxtonFettel on 9/6/2007 2:22:25 AM , Rating: 3
I didn't want to be the first to say it but I've had an 8gb player with all the 'new' functionality of this touch thingy for a couple of years now. And it doesn't have a naff touch screen either. I call it a PSP.


Old Ipod Video
By i4mt3hwin on 9/5/2007 3:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if they can just update the old IPOD 30/60gig video's with the new user interface?




RE: Old Ipod Video
By ksherman on 9/5/2007 3:44:22 PM , Rating: 1
Uh, they did. Called the iPod classic with 80 and 160GB capacities.


RE: Old Ipod Video
By hlper on 9/5/2007 4:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think he or she is referring to the touch screen interface, so they didn't. Play nice.


RE: Old Ipod Video
By raejae on 9/5/2007 4:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
You're both wrong, he's referring to being able to update the software on the old iPods so the interface looks/acts like the interface on the new Classic.

I highly doubt it; the old iPods are based on Luxo, the new ones are based on OS X.


RE: Old Ipod Video
By PrimarchLion on 9/5/2007 5:55:02 PM , Rating: 1
Wish they'd put some USB ports on ipods/iphones so I could buy a usb cdrom or floppy and start installing some of my old mac software. Oregon Trail anyone?


RE: Old Ipod Video
By Oregonian2 on 9/5/2007 7:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
The Oregon trail passes right by me, very closely. There's a museum for it not far away.


Fack
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/5/2007 3:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
Think I will keep my current nano... the fatty doesnt look taht great.




RE: Fack
By Michael Hoffman on 9/5/2007 4:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
It really does seem to come down to personal preference...

I actually was thinking about buying a nano right before I received an invite to the event, but now I am just going to wait a few days before purchasing the new nano.


RE: Fack
By Gul Westfale on 9/6/2007 12:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
well, or you could get the new PSP+ a couple memory sticks... bigger screen+games for around the same money.


RE: Fack
By rdeegvainl on 9/9/2007 8:54:56 AM , Rating: 2
and pay all the extra for more batteries? i think not


ipod
By sagitarius on 9/5/2007 11:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm.....
The iPod touch has only a few gigs of space...
it could've been bigger, but isn't....
just think, they had to do something with all the 4GB iPhones they didn't sell.
Personally, they should just roll it all into one; touchscreen, video, music, phone, camera, video games, video recording, internet, iTunes downloads, 200GB of space, unlock it and make it about the size of the Nano with optional full-size.
There you go, give it about 8 months and you'll have something very similar. Thats just the way Apple works. Oh yeah, and it will cost an arm & a leg at first, then you will be able to buy it in colors, then it will drop in price.




RE: ipod
By vitul on 9/6/2007 12:13:02 AM , Rating: 2
very true. I honestly would have picked one up even though my ipod video is just fine. Just for the wifi brower etc etc. But with only 16gb max. I almost laugh at that. For the battery life of the 160gig they definatly could have managed a good battery life if they based the ipod touch on a 60 or 80gig hdd.

Oh well im sure myself and way more people then not will hold out on the touch until they make a bigger drive on it. be that flash or a slightly bigger version with a hdd.


RE: ipod
By Kainzy on 9/6/2007 8:41:18 AM , Rating: 2
For once I am tempted by the touch but the price is laughable.

I currently have a Zen Vision:M 30gb, and even it's successor, the new Zen is flash based. So Creative have ditched the hard drive end of the market altogether it seems. The Vision:M was superior to the iPod in almost everyway, and even it's successor is feature wise.

I have a dilemma now. I like the look of the touch, I do want something slimmer, and I can live with 16gb of non-expandable storage. However I wish the 16gb model was cheaper.

They've just grabbed the iPhone and ripped the phone functionality out of it from the look of things.


I think I'll pass
By ZipSpeed on 9/5/2007 11:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still using my 4 GB iPod mini. I was waiting for the day for Apple to announce a touch-based iPod and I felt like I have waited for nothing. 16 GB... lol? I suppose I could go for the iPod classic but I want a touch-screen. I guess I can wait. I've been using the mini for the last 3 years. I guess another year to wait for Apple to refine the product wouldn't hurt.




RE: I think I'll pass
By tumby1974 on 9/6/2007 3:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm still using my 4 GB iPod mini. I was waiting for the day for Apple to announce a touch-based iPod and I felt like I have waited for nothing. 16 GB... lol? I suppose I could go for the iPod classic but I want a touch-screen. I guess I can wait. I've been using the mini for the last 3 years. I guess another year to wait for Apple to refine the product wouldn't hurt.


You're complaining that 16GB isn't big enough, but have been using a 4GB player for 3 years? The 16GB version is 4 times the size you have now. It should be plenty big for your needs.


RE: I think I'll pass
By ZipSpeed on 9/6/2007 4:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
You shouldn't presume. You know nothing of my music habits.
My 4 GB is definitley not enough for me. I have about 100 GB worth of music on my computer. I probably swap out my music at least once or twice a week. The reason I was holding out was because of the rumour of a touch-based iPod. I was expecting it to have a hard drive. I'm actually considering going with a 160 GB Classic. I'm not made of money with a mortgage and bills to pay so I have no luxury of upgrading every year hence waiting out for the iPod touch.


genius
By Moishe on 9/5/2007 2:49:59 PM , Rating: 1
Hear the sound of Steve Balmer sobbing in his bedroom...

They will sell a million of these.
I thought the price and the phone were the most useless features on the iPhone... without those you have a really nice wifi media player that connects to iTunes. This is what the Zune should have been.




RE: genius
By PrimarchLion on 9/5/2007 5:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
they should include VoIP software with it so you can still use the phone via wifi with no monthly fees (preferably). I would consider buying one then. If that actually happens I will need to come up with some other excuse that seems nearly impossible not to get one.


RE: genius
By Oregonian2 on 9/5/2007 7:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
They seem to have stayed with iPods not having a microphone so even an ad-on app wouldn't work. :-(


indeed
By solgae1784 on 9/5/2007 2:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft just got owned again.

Those iPod Classics are a steal with their capacity and the price. 30 hours battery life for audio is friggin nice too.

iPod Touch is now on my dream list. Shame they had to use the flash instead of the hard drive......I guess it's hard to work with the touch screen.




RE: indeed
By Moishe on 9/5/2007 2:58:22 PM , Rating: 1
I've never considered buying an iPod... but the low end is finally starting to look like they're reasonably priced.


RE: indeed
By peritusONE on 9/6/2007 8:21:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft just got owned again.

I find it funny that someone always brings Microsoft into the argument when it comes to talking about Apple and their iPod. Microsoft hasn't even been in the game for a year yet, of course they are going to be outplayed by the company who started this business 6 years ago.

Besides, atleast wait to see what Microsoft has in store for their next player to come out in a couple of months before you claim victory over features/price.


Wow
By afkrotch on 9/5/2007 9:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
Newer, thinner, and longer, yet less crush resistant. Ya, can't wait to see how many ppl crush these things.

It does look very nice though. If they keep making these things thinner and longer, I'll be less inclined to get one. Shuffle would have almost fit the bill, but no damn screen.

Need something sturdy for snowboarding.




RE: Wow
By PaxtonFettel on 9/6/2007 2:17:47 AM , Rating: 2
I crushed my old 3G ipod. That was the last good ipod I ever used/saw, I really haven't been impressed with them since.


Starbucks
By Griswold on 9/6/2007 3:30:37 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, I see why they struck the deal with Starbucks. It fits the apple image. And you can usually find several starbucks in virtually every US city/town. It looks a bit different abroad though. There are starbucks in most major cities around the globe, but the overall density is certainly relatively small compared to the united states.

Why didnt they make an additional deal with, lets say, McDonals? Now that is something you can find everywhere. Then again, fat burgers and greasy fries doesnt go well with the clean yuppie image of apple. :p




RE: Starbucks
By GoatMonkey on 9/6/2007 8:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
What am I supposed to do since I don't drink coffee? They should make a deal with Budweiser, so that everywhere its served has wireless internet.


Why?
By DragonMaster0 on 9/5/2007 7:52:53 PM , Rating: 3
Funny how when Apple releases a new computer or MP3 player, it makes the headlines(or almost) of every single news sources I can find. Any reason?




RED
By PrinceGaz on 9/6/2007 1:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
Why is the word 'Red' spelled using all capital-letters in the article?




Apple Kool-Aid all over again
By rsmech on 9/7/2007 3:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
The new iPod touch is essentially an iPhone stripped of its GSM and phone capabilities.

iphone (8Gb) = $600 old price, $400 new price

ipod touch (8Gb) = $300

Apple loyalists easy target again. First you pay $300 for basic phone capabilities now just $100. I know many no frill phones for under $100. This is why there was a price drop on the iphone. It would have pissed off many people to think they paid $300 for just basic phone functions. But we all have to remember one thing, can a loyalist ever really be mad a Mr. Jobs?




ipod sucks bad
By audiomaniaca on 9/8/2007 12:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ipods are the suckiest player i've ever seen. After one year, they start freezing just like windows. After two years, or they're gone or battery dead. The video functionality in my ipod was never used at all, all because putting videos into it is more difficult than programming in assembly.




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki