PDA

View Full Version : Price of the new iPod Touch. Scratching my head here.




revelated
Sep 1, 2010, 07:54 PM
Previously, I believe you could get a low end iPod Touch for $180.

Now, Apple wants you to pay effectively $50 more. For what? A screen that's slightly more visible? Cameras that likely cost them no more than two dollars? The ability to place Skype calls (Which the original iPod Touch already had)? What exactly is justifying this price hike (and yes, it is a hike for such a low amount of storage which isn't expandable)?

I see posts from people talking about how "Great" the price is. It isn't. Not when you compare it to the original iPod Touch and certainly not when you compare it to the Zune (I know, less functionality, but still. For those who want to play MUSIC and MOVIES, the iPod Touch is a ripoff now). It's like they're giving non-AT&T customers a chance to own the next best thing to an iPhone...but then why not drop its price? It has no 3G, has no GPS, has a lesser version of the display, and is basically reused components from the previous year. And then look at the other devices:

Apple TV - Was $250, now $100 with MORE functionality

iMacs - used to be crazy expensive, now they're no less so than most other PCs with comparable specs and screen

MacBook Pro - a shadow of the price compared to the PowerBook era

iPad 16GB WiFi - quite reasonably priced for what it does

old iPod Nano - $130 or something? Quite reasonable for that level of engineering


I'm not hating on it - I seriously want an answer. What is justifying the increase in price? Because I just don't get it.



iMac0765
Sep 1, 2010, 07:57 PM
You heard what Stevey said, it's the iPhone, without the phone.

He wants the touch to be as overpriced as the phone!

Pure Apple logic.

pingualoty
Sep 1, 2010, 07:57 PM
That lowest one from last year was released 2 years ago thats why the price has gone up. As everything bar the memory space has got better.

revelated
Sep 1, 2010, 08:04 PM
That lowest one from last year was released 2 years ago thats why the price has gone up. As everything bar the memory space has got better.

Come on man. Depreciation of technology. I'd be willing to wager if someone were to break down the cost to build these new Touches they'd find them just shy of $130 in component costs. That means even if they left it at $180 it'd still be quite profitable for them.

terraphantm
Sep 1, 2010, 08:05 PM
It's only $30 more. And don't write off the retina display until you use it. I can't look at the old displays anymore after getting used to the iPhone 4. IMO upgrading for the screen alone wouldve been worth it. Now you've also got the much faster A4 CPU, the PowerVR GPU, 512MB RAM, 3-axis gyro, and a much thinner form factor.

Remember the only time there was a $200 touch, it was based on the previous gen tech

1st gen: 8GB was $300, 32GB was $500
2nd gen: 8GB was $230 in 2008, $200 in 2009
3rd gen: There was no 8gb. Cheapest was 32gb at $300
4th gen: 8gb is $230 again.

While it's not the best price (it should've been 16gb IMO) it's not terrible either. It atleast has all the latest tech. and the 32gb is only $70 more

Ipodize
Sep 1, 2010, 08:21 PM
It atleast has all the latest tech

No it doesn't, it's not the same retina display (just check out Engadget's video here (http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/01/ipod-touch-2010-first-hands-on/), when the guy pans down the iPhone's retina maintains near-perfect color, whereas the iTouch 4 retina goes all blue) and the back cam is 1000% obsolete.

NJMetsHero
Sep 1, 2010, 08:33 PM
It was $200 before. So it's not an awful thing. I'm going straight for the 32 GB anyway.

The Catalyst
Sep 1, 2010, 09:04 PM
Luxury tax, plain and simple.

lilcosco08
Sep 1, 2010, 09:18 PM
No it doesn't, it's not the same retina display (just check out Engadget's video here (http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/01/ipod-touch-2010-first-hands-on/), when the guy pans down the iPhone's retina maintains near-perfect color, whereas the iTouch 4 retina goes all blue) and the back cam is 1000% obsolete.

Someone call the wambulance
I don't recall it being called the iCamera

xoggyux
Sep 1, 2010, 09:36 PM
why do you think it should be cheaper?
feature wise its great deal for $$ if you are upgrading. you get 2 cameras, HD video, slimmer design, improved performance, full compatibility with iOS4 (some older ipods were lacking this) better gyro, much better screen, etc. so if you already got an ipod its a fair upgrade for the things you are getting.
more importantly though, if you do not have an ipod already, then its a even better deal because you are getting MORE for the same price you used to get the older ipod. So IMO they are very good priced, in fact I am surprized that apple made a 8gb version for $230, I was expecting starting @ 16gb for $300 so IMO the 8GB is actually very competitive and aggressively priced.

IDK what you were expecting, because if you are not happy with all the goodies they packed in the new version then there is something wrong with you :D!

Vesuvio Cat
Sep 1, 2010, 09:45 PM
At first I thought the thread was meant to be sarcastic, but I guess not. For $50 more you get a HD camera, front-facing camera, retina display, a 1 GHZ processor. The previous 8 GB Touch was significantly slower and had none of the new core features.

Considering all of this, plus the fact that Apple is a business that wants to make a profit, I don't understand why you should be scratching your head.

NT1440
Sep 1, 2010, 09:51 PM
That screen is expensive.

Bill Gates
Sep 1, 2010, 09:57 PM
No it doesn't, it's not the same retina display (just check out Engadget's video here (http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/01/ipod-touch-2010-first-hands-on/), when the guy pans down the iPhone's retina maintains near-perfect color, whereas the iTouch 4 retina goes all blue) and the back cam is 1000% obsolete.
Good catch. It looks like Apple is using a TN panel on the iPod Touch.

hcho3
Sep 1, 2010, 10:21 PM
Here we go again. People are crying. If you want better features, then go get yourself an iPhone 4 or wait for iPod touch 5.

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 12:11 AM
Here we go again. People are crying. If you want better features, then go get yourself an iPhone 4 or wait for iPod touch 5.

iPhones require data plans; touches don't.

revelated
Sep 2, 2010, 08:27 AM
Here's my thing. If the low end model were rocking 16gb at that price, ok. Maybe it makes sense. But 8gb?

I think I agree with the web critics. It's clear what Apple is doing. The iPod Touch should be renamed iPhone Lite. Don't call it an iPod if you're going to shy away from what the iPod was supposed to be (a MUSIC player first).

cgoodwin22
Sep 2, 2010, 08:39 AM
people will always find something to b##ch about...don't buy it if you don't think it's worth it. i'm completely happy about the upgrades.

tubemonkey
Sep 2, 2010, 08:43 AM
people will always find something to b##ch about...don't buy it if you don't think it's worth it. i'm completely happy about the upgrades.

I'm not buying it.

Do you envision a message board where people just think happy thoughts and never say anything negative about a product?

goobot
Sep 2, 2010, 08:44 AM
the 3g ipod was 300$ :rolleyes:

mysticbluebmw
Sep 2, 2010, 08:52 AM
Here's my thing. If the low end model were rocking 16gb at that price, ok. Maybe it makes sense. But 8gb?

I think I agree with the web critics. It's clear what Apple is doing. The iPod Touch should be renamed iPhone Lite. Don't call it an iPod if you're going to shy away from what the iPod was supposed to be (a MUSIC player first).

Bingo, it's NOT a music player first anymore. If you want a cheap music player, there a gazillion others out there that may fit your needs. The Touch is priced appropriately for what is does. It's leaps and bounds better than the same priced $230 model (initial price at launch) it replaced. Did you come to the forums in 2008 and complain about that price as well? Again, as solely as a music player it would be overpriced, but that's not all it is anymore.

Vesuvio Cat
Sep 2, 2010, 10:30 AM
Here's my thing. If the low end model were rocking 16gb at that price, ok. Maybe it makes sense. But 8gb?

I think I agree with the web critics. It's clear what Apple is doing. The iPod Touch should be renamed iPhone Lite. Don't call it an iPod if you're going to shy away from what the iPod was supposed to be (a MUSIC player first).

I'm not sure that the iPod is "supposed to be" anything. Once the device got its feet off the ground, it was clear that Apple wanted it to be capable of many different things. It wasn't just yesterday that the iPod Touch became a video player and gaming device. Classics are still for sale, if you are disappointed with the new Touch and want to only listen to music.

revelated
Sep 3, 2010, 05:19 PM
I'm not sure that the iPod is "supposed to be" anything. Once the device got its feet off the ground, it was clear that Apple wanted it to be capable of many different things. It wasn't just yesterday that the iPod Touch became a video player and gaming device. Classics are still for sale, if you are disappointed with the new Touch and want to only listen to music.

If you don't realize/remember that the iPod was first and foremost a music device...then Apple has already won. Thus the reason people are having a fit over the fact that Apple's storage capacity keeps dropping ever steadily.

joe1946
Sep 3, 2010, 07:13 PM
If you people hate the new G4 version then get the G3 version for less money but show me anything else on the planet with the G4 specs. I wanted a 64GB iPhone 4 without the phone but with 802.11n wi-fi and this is it.

theanimala
Sep 3, 2010, 07:56 PM
I don't see the new iPod Touch as being a ripoff, compared to the previous version. Right now I have the Apple Refurb site and they want $319 for the 3rd Gen 64GB. Today I paid $56 more ($375 for a 64GB Gen 4 with company employee discount which is easy to find online), to get a new Touch with Retina display, gryoscope, thinner (good or bad), front camera, more battery life, faster A4 processor, plus minor things. Doesn't seem like I am paying much more for a NEW system with all these new guts vs a refurb system with old guts...

FearNo1
Sep 3, 2010, 08:07 PM
I agree with you that the touch (iphone, as well as all apple products) is greatly overpriced. I think it is iSupply that estimates that apple normally makes 100% profit from the iphone. I don't mind that it has transformed from being more than just an audio player tho. If you want a pure mp3 player, perhaps the classic is your best choice?

Here's my thing. If the low end model were rocking 16gb at that price, ok. Maybe it makes sense. But 8gb?

I think I agree with the web critics. It's clear what Apple is doing. The iPod Touch should be renamed iPhone Lite. Don't call it an iPod if you're going to shy away from what the iPod was supposed to be (a MUSIC player first).

kingofkings8183
Sep 3, 2010, 08:26 PM
Here's my thing. If the low end model were rocking 16gb at that price, ok. Maybe it makes sense. But 8gb?

I think I agree with the web critics. It's clear what Apple is doing. The iPod Touch should be renamed iPhone Lite. Don't call it an iPod if you're going to shy away from what the iPod was supposed to be (a MUSIC player first).

that's the most absurd thing i have ever heard.iphone lite?you do know it does NOT have phone capabilities? it plays MUSIC and plays it well.does it work as a phone?no. it is nowhere near being a phone.

dont call something that plays music and videos nicely an ipod,instead call it the iphone even though it is unable to do anything remotely close to telephony or text messaging. you fail.

Seriously, this whole thread is a waste of internet space.if you cant afford to spend 30 extra bucks for a hundred extra amazing features ,then i pity you.If you just want a MUSIC player at the price you want,there are tons of other options you can choose from.

FearNo1
Sep 3, 2010, 08:33 PM
Only thing that separates the touch from the iphone is 3g. Once it has data, it can do everything an iphone does via apps. I think that was the point the OP was trying to make. It was inevitable that the touch was going to get many of phone's features, it prob was jobs' plan all along.

that's the most absurd thing i have ever heard.iphone lite?you do know it does NOT have phone capabilities? it plays MUSIC and plays it well.does it work as a phone?no. it is nowhere near being a phone.

dont call something that plays music and videos nicely an ipod,instead call it the iphone even though it is unable to do anything remotely close to telephony or text messaging. you fail.

Seriously, this whole thread is a waste of internet space.if you cant afford to spend 30 extra bucks for a hundred extra amazing features ,then i pity you.If you just want a MUSIC player at the price you want,there are tons of other options you can choose from.

kingofkings8183
Sep 3, 2010, 08:40 PM
Only thing that separates the touch from the iphone is 3g. Once it has data, it can do everything an iphone does via apps. I think that was the point the OP was trying to make. It was inevitable that the touch was going to get many of phone's features, it prob was jobs' plan all along.

it doesnt have data.it will never have data.from apple's point of view,it is not intended to make phone calls of any kind.nor send text messages.they are not considering workarounds people may use to make calls from the touch.

but they have included a very good music player on the ipod touch which imo is better than most other solutions in the market.so obviously it is much closer to being an ipod rather than an iphone.

skiltrip
Sep 3, 2010, 08:43 PM
I don't agree that the iPod touches are overpriced. I see them as much more of a PDA/Internet type device that happens to have an excellent MP3 player built in to it. I paid $200+ for a Palm TX a few years back for just this purpose. It had Wifi, but the browser sucked. There was very little software/apps for it. The music player was a trial of some stupid software that you had to pay more for if you wanted features. It was pathetic. I ended up selling it for $100 a year or so later.

BUT, I do agree, that Apple should have a line of no-frills MP3 players. I know the Classic is there, but it's high capacity is simply not necessary for most people. I know they want to rope the masses into the new Nano. But I just don't see the appeal in that thing. The old Nano did fill the niche of the no frills MP3 player. Now it's like the iPod touches bastard little nephew. And we already know the iPod touch is the iPhone's bastard stepchild.

izimzis
Sep 3, 2010, 08:54 PM
Actually the new iPods are amazingly cheap, especially the 8gb model.
Usually iPods have a profit margin of at least 50%. It should be around 40% for the iPods. A couple of days ago you could have bought a iPod touch 2g for 200$!

tadad1
Sep 3, 2010, 08:57 PM
Here in New Zealand the 64GB has gone down in price and is $50 cheaper compared to the 3rd gen model. :D

kingofkings8183
Sep 3, 2010, 09:03 PM
Here in New Zealand the 64GB has gone down in price and is $50 cheaper compared to the 3rd gen model. :D

i know! :) where you getting it from? dick smith and b+b have it on their websites now.

FearNo1
Sep 3, 2010, 09:09 PM
That makes no sense. If apple did not intend for the touch not to send/resend data it would have not supported wifi. Apple could have just made the touch like the ipod classic. Why do you think apple has brought facetime to the touch? The touch is basically a mini-computer due to the apps and wifi.

it doesnt have data.it will never have data.from apple's point of view,it is not intended to make phone calls of any kind.nor send text messages.they are not considering workarounds people may use to make calls from the touch.

but they have included a very good music player on the ipod touch which imo is better than most other solutions in the market.so obviously it is much closer to being an ipod rather than an iphone.

kingofkings8183
Sep 3, 2010, 09:20 PM
That makes no sense. If apple did not intend for the touch not to send/resend data it would have not supported wifi. Apple could have just made the touch like the ipod classic. Why do you think apple has brought facetime to the touch? The touch is basically a mini-computer due to the apps and wifi.

just because my ps3 supports wi fi doesnt mean its intended to make calls.i explicitly mentioned CALLS and TEXT messages to another phone,a phone's primary functions,not data.

tadad1
Sep 3, 2010, 09:38 PM
i know! :) where you getting it from? dick smith and b+b have it on their websites now.


I ordered the 64G from Apple as soon as they were live on the NZ site. According to the purchase confirmation should ship sometime next week.

FearNo1
Sep 3, 2010, 09:48 PM
Actually PS3 does make calls via VOIP...whether or not you call another phone is irrelevant because the traditional phone (e.g. land line) has been replaced by other devices that do the same and more. You can also send emails via PS3. Land lines are being replaced by cell and cell phones are being replaced by data. Of course the cell phones don't like it but thats technology for you... Todays technology is not a one trick pony.

just because my ps3 supports wi fi doesnt mean its intended to make calls.i explicitly mentioned CALLS and TEXT messages to another phone,a phone's primary functions,not data.

MsMerryMac
Sep 3, 2010, 10:03 PM
Wait...let me call the wahhhhhbulance! I don't understand people complaining about the new Touch...because it was not tailored to "their" ideals? Seriously - it is what it is and love it or hate it but what is the point of whining?

kingofkings8183
Sep 3, 2010, 10:23 PM
Actually PS3 does make calls via VOIP...whether or not you call another phone is irrelevant because the traditional phone (e.g. land line) has been replaced by other devices that do the same and more. You can also send emails via PS3. Land lines are being replaced by cell and cell phones are being replaced by data. Of course the cell phones don't like it but thats technology for you... Todays technology is not a one trick pony.

ps3 makes VOIP calls.so they should now scrap the playstation name and call it phonestation?same thing here.

ChrisGonzales90
Sep 3, 2010, 10:51 PM
The old 8GB touch was actually the second generation. (2008-2009 model) There was never a 8GB third edition.(2009-2010) This new 8GB touch is the 4th generation. (2010-2011) For the extra $30 its worth it.

If you can't afford the extra $30, then how can you afford an touch at all?

FearNo1
Sep 3, 2010, 10:53 PM
Call it whatever you like but I think you see my point ;)

ps3 makes VOIP calls.so they should now scrap the playstation name and call it phonestation?same thing here.

MythicFrost
Sep 3, 2010, 10:58 PM
Prior to this release, the low end iPod Touch was the previous generation to the higher end ones. So, essentially, instead of a third generation iPod Touch for $180, you get a front + rear camera, double RAM, more powerful CPU, retina display, etc.

revelated
Sep 3, 2010, 11:48 PM
it is not intended to make phone calls of any kind.

:confused:

http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/


FaceTime brings video calling to iPod touch. So now you can see your friends and talk to them.


That is right on the front page, dude. Of course they intended for the Touch to make phone calls.


but they have included a very good music player on the ipod touch which imo is better than most other solutions in the market.so obviously it is much closer to being an ipod rather than an iphone.

Dunno where you're getting this stat from. 5-year old Sansa players spit out superior sound to the Touch. The Zune also spits out superior sound (which is why I ended up returning my 3rd Gen). Hell, my Palm Pre has better audio quality.

Look, it's not about being able to "afford" the extra money. I'm typing this on a 17" MacBook Pro; I know full well the concept of marked up products. But in the case of the 17" it's actually significantly lower than it used to be, unlike the Touch where they felt compelled to ramp the price. It's the principle of the thing; there's principalities in this.

If the new Touch had:

The EXACT SAME screen as the iPhone (which the previous gen did);
Truly better audio quality;
A better form factor (i.e. not so thin as to be near fragile), maybe half the thickness of the iPhone;
A camera on par at least with cell phones released 4 years ago; and
A non-chrome back


Then I could justify the higher price. But it's crystal clear they nerfed a lot of the components intentionally so that people would not skip the iPhone, and in the process, they made it just as crystal clear that the thing is overpriced. Even if they at least had the identical screen then I could maybe justify the higher price. But they couldn't even do that.

ChrisGonzales90
Sep 4, 2010, 12:06 AM
:confused:

http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/



That is right on the front page, dude. Of course they intended for the Touch to make phone calls.


If the new Touch had:
The EXACT SAME screen as the iPhone (which the previous gen did);
Truly better audio quality;
A better form factor (i.e. not so thin as to be near fragile), maybe half the thickness of the iPhone;
A camera on par at least with cell phones released 4 years ago; and
A non-chrome back
Then I could justify the higher price. But it's crystal clear they nerfed a lot of the components intentionally so that people would not skip the iPhone, and in the process, they made it just as crystal clear that the thing is overpriced. Even if they at least had the identical screen then I could maybe justify the higher price. But they couldn't even do that.

First off, by making phone calls we mean the good old fashon dial a number and talk. Check voice mail. Send and receive MMS and SMS, etc

Second, its been said already that the old 8GB was for the SECOND GENERATION, meaning the one from 2008. This new 8GB is THIS YEARS MODEL. It has a lot more then what was used in 2008. The new touch DOES have the same screen as the iphone 4. The old touch had the same as the 3G/3GS.

not sure how all of this is hard to understand. Apple has to make money for all the new extras they added on.

Now I'm sure if the 8GB was the third edition then yeah I would be questioning the raise in price, but its not. Its the all new 4th edition and it has new things that the previous generations did not.

Sorry to sound harsh but it seems to me your a cheapskate.

Ipodize
Sep 4, 2010, 01:05 AM
The new touch DOES have the same screen as the iphone 4.

NO IT DOESN'T. Have a good look at the engadget video. When the guy pans down to compare thickness, the iPhone 4 screen maintains near-perfect color, whereas the iPod Touch 4 screen blues out.

Tmacfan4321
Sep 4, 2010, 01:12 AM
I agree with you that the touch (iphone, as well as all apple products) is greatly overpriced. I think it is iSupply that estimates that apple normally makes 100% profit from the iphone. I don't mind that it has transformed from being more than just an audio player tho. If you want a pure mp3 player, perhaps the classic is your best choice?
That sort of profit margin (for the iPhone at least) is common in the mobile sector. The nature of cell phone subsidies in the US gave rise to this.

ryan0402
Sep 4, 2010, 01:13 AM
I am going to sell my jailbroken itouch "upgraded" 8gb 2g so I can upgrade to the 4g. What is a reasonable price... so far I am at 150 for one offer should I take it?

ChrisGonzales90
Sep 4, 2010, 01:27 AM
NO IT DOESN'T. Have a good look at the engadget video. When the guy pans down to compare thickness, the iPhone 4 screen maintains near-perfect color, whereas the iPod Touch 4 screen blues out.

What are we in middle school kid? please.
You can't compare something with high wattage lights shining down from above.

I suguest you my friend taken a good look at the display specs for the iPod Touch (http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/specs.html) and the iPhone (http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html)

Touch:


3.5-inch (diagonal) widescreen
Multi-Touch display
960-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 pixels per inchiPhone


Retina display
3.5-inch (diagonal) widescreen Multi-Touch display
960-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi
800:1 contrast ratio (typical)
500 cd/m2 max brightness (typical)
Fingerprint-resistant oleophobic coating on front and back
Support for display of multiple languages and characters simultaneously
Yes, the touch specs dont say Retna, either thats a misshap, or what. The actual produict page says Retna.

Don't always believe what you see. Especially when there is light shining down on the devices. Plus perhaps the devices were not set at the same brightness level?

tachnyrus
Sep 4, 2010, 01:37 AM
:confused:

http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/



That is right on the front page, dude. Of course they intended for the Touch to make phone calls.




Dunno where you're getting this stat from. 5-year old Sansa players spit out superior sound to the Touch. The Zune also spits out superior sound (which is why I ended up returning my 3rd Gen). Hell, my Palm Pre has better audio quality.

Look, it's not about being able to "afford" the extra money. I'm typing this on a 17" MacBook Pro; I know full well the concept of marked up products. But in the case of the 17" it's actually significantly lower than it used to be, unlike the Touch where they felt compelled to ramp the price. It's the principle of the thing; there's principalities in this.

If the new Touch had:

The EXACT SAME screen as the iPhone (which the previous gen did);
Truly better audio quality;
A better form factor (i.e. not so thin as to be near fragile), maybe half the thickness of the iPhone;
A camera on par at least with cell phones released 4 years ago; and
A non-chrome back


Then I could justify the higher price. But it's crystal clear they nerfed a lot of the components intentionally so that people would not skip the iPhone, and in the process, they made it just as crystal clear that the thing is overpriced. Even if they at least had the identical screen then I could maybe justify the higher price. But they couldn't even do that.

Wah! Wah! My sense of entitlement isn't fulfilled! Apple OWES me these features at the price point *I* demand! Grow up.

I think the iPad is overpriced for it's functionality too. I don't think apple owes it to me at a cheaper price.

Code.Red
Sep 4, 2010, 01:39 AM
Yes, the touch specs dont say Retna, either thats a misshap, or what. The actual produict page says Retna.

Don't always believe what you see. Especially when there is light shining down on the devices. Plus perhaps the devices were not set at the same brightness level?

You have a point... except he's right. True, it's a "Retina Display", which means only that it has a pixel density of 326ppi at the same resolution. However, the underlying display technology is not the same. You can clearly see in the Engadget video that it is not an IPS display. You can see the colors degrade, while the iPhone 4 simply does not. This is exactly what IPS does not do.

It's not something most people will notice or care about, so honestly it's not that big of a deal. Yes, it's not the same display as the iPhone 4, but we've been dealing with this type of inferior display for the entire iPod touch line, except now this one has a much higher pixel density. It's still a win.

ChrisGonzales90
Sep 4, 2010, 01:51 AM
ah. I didn't know the iPhone had IPS.

Code.Red
Sep 4, 2010, 02:00 AM
Yeah, it's too bad. IPS displays are really great.

Most of the confusion is the fact that Apple is trying to hide/downplay the fact it isn't the exact same screen, while still calling it the Retina Display. Some people assumed that a Retina Display means that it has the high ppi and it is an IPS display, when this really is just a marketing term Apple made up, so it can mean pretty much whatever they want. In this case, it really only means it has the high ppi.

Also, the way Steve Jobs introduced it in the keynote sounded like it was the "exact same" display, but the way he said it didn't mean that. He chose his words carefully.

Anyway, it's just something else they can add to the upgrade list for the iPod 5th gen, right? :p

ChrisGonzales90
Sep 4, 2010, 02:10 AM
I want a 4.3" model. Like the evo and even the PSP. If apple is obessed with this being a game machine, a slighlty larget screen would be neat.

Even if its 3.8 that would be good.

SnowLeopard2008
Sep 4, 2010, 02:16 AM
IPS is incredibly expensive compared to cheaper TN panels. You can find 24" monitors with 1920 x 1200 resolution for really cheap, but an IPS panel version is 2x the price or more. The iPhone is subsidized and the real price is actually $700. That gives Apple more room to put in better components because the price is a little more than double the same capacity iPod touch.

FearNo1
Sep 4, 2010, 12:50 PM
"$700"?? :eek: What source is that? According to iSuppli, the cost of the 16gb iphone is $188 in june and that price will only drop over time. Thus when you factor in the exclusive deal apple got with at+t, they are easily making huge profits on each iphone sold. And don't let me start on added profits from itunes purchases, app dev kit purchases, macs bought used to create the apps, etc. Thus apple is making gigantic profits here...lets not fool ourselves...

http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns-Manufacturing-and-Pricing/News/Pages/iPhone-4-Carries-Bill-of-Materials-of-187-51-According-to-iSuppli.aspx
The iPhone 4ís design may be radically differentóbut the strategy remains the same, with the latest member of the product line carrying a Bill of Materials (BOM) that should continue to generate high profit margins for Apple Inc., according to iSuppli Corp.ís Teardown Analysis service.

IPS is incredibly expensive compared to cheaper TN panels. You can find 24" monitors with 1920 x 1200 resolution for really cheap, but an IPS panel version is 2x the price or more. The iPhone is subsidized and the real price is actually $700. That gives Apple more room to put in better components because the price is a little more than double the same capacity iPod touch.

joe1946
Sep 4, 2010, 12:59 PM
"$700"?? :eek: What source is that? According to iSuppli, the cost of the 16gb iphone is $188 in june and that price will only drop over time. Thus when you factor in the exclusive deal apple got with at+t, they are easily making huge profits on each iphone sold. And don't let me start on added profits from itunes purchases, app dev kit purchases, macs bought used to create the apps, etc. Thus apple is making gigantic profits here...lets not fool ourselves...

http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns-Manufacturing-and-Pricing/News/Pages/iPhone-4-Carries-Bill-of-Materials-of-187-51-According-to-iSuppli.aspx
The iPhone 4’s design may be radically different—but the strategy remains the same, with the latest member of the product line carrying a Bill of Materials (BOM) that should continue to generate high profit margins for Apple Inc., according to iSuppli Corp.’s Teardown Analysis service.

Show me a link to were I could buy an iPhone 4 for $188. The last time I checked Apple was a for profit company like Microsoft.

FearNo1
Sep 4, 2010, 01:31 PM
At what point did I say the retail price of the iphone is $188? Do you even comprehend english?? :confused::rolleyes: The prior post said that it costs apple so much to make the iphone. I was showing a link saying that was not the case. BTW, why even mention MS here? Mactards these days... :rolleyes::p

Show me a link to were I could buy an iPhone 4 for $188. The last time I checked Apple was a for profit company like Microsoft.

revelated
Sep 4, 2010, 07:58 PM
Wah! Wah! My sense of entitlement isn't fulfilled! Apple OWES me these features at the price point *I* demand! Grow up.

I don't demand anything. I'm stating my opinion on the subject. I feel that the price should have been basically identical to what last gen's 8GB was. I don't see the extra $40 worth of components here. The screen has already been verified as NOT the IPS screen and it's really the only thing that's changed besides the processor, which Apple manufactures for pennies on the dollar. The Mac Mini went up basically $200, but with that $200 you got SIGNIFICANTLY more than what the iPod Touch's increase gave you. The MacBook Pro 13" base actually went down a bit, and for that price DROP you got a stronger machine. I'm not asking for them to give it away; they have to make a profit, but do they have to basically use Vaseline to get it?


I think the iPad is overpriced for it's functionality too. I don't think apple owes it to me at a cheaper price.

The 16GB WiFi iPad isn't overpriced. There's a significant profit margin on it which has been verified, but it's also basically a new product in a space where few others are. It has no comparison point, and those that have tried have always come in at a higher cost. The 3G iPads are DEFINITELY overpriced, especially in light of Mobile Hotspots which are gaining popularity by the day.