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)


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Related Articles













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