PDA

View Full Version : Engadget reviews the new Touch!




rbf1138
Sep 7, 2010, 08:07 PM
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/07/ipod-touch-review-2010/



LanEvo
Sep 7, 2010, 08:14 PM
The listed a 16GB model for $229, is that just a typo?

kcjohn
Sep 7, 2010, 08:23 PM
Great review, goes great with a glass of Apple Kool-aid.http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=214074197052&id=568b884344e07966c243a69eb52c2b88&index=ch1

kingofkings8183
Sep 7, 2010, 08:25 PM
told you the screen isnt IPS.wonderful device nonetheless,and the video capture looks great.cant wait!

fwoppers
Sep 7, 2010, 08:26 PM
The listed a 16GB model for $229, is that just a typo?

... if not, I am saving $70 tomorrow morning. :P


Camera: As expected

Screen: As expected

Everything else: As expected

JoeShades
Sep 7, 2010, 08:31 PM
i am not happy if the speaker is no good, i have the 1g and i hate having to always use the headphones when just listening to a podcast or a quick video clip, i don't want to have to get my headphones every time. one of the big reasons for me to upgrade is an external speaker

tablo13
Sep 7, 2010, 08:32 PM
The camera looks just decent, but with grains :(

freeme007
Sep 7, 2010, 08:36 PM
After reading the review, I feel like i want to cancel the Pre-order. I feel i got tricked into Apples hype!

maus
Sep 7, 2010, 08:37 PM
After reading the review, I feel like i want to cancel the Pre-order. I feel i got tricked into Apples hype!
What were you expecting? Just curious.

earth.razer
Sep 7, 2010, 08:39 PM
How can you consider the camera stills decent? It looks like crap. All those people talking about how low pixel count doesn't equal bad image quality just feast your eyes on the pictures in this review. This is what we get after all this hype about a camera. I wouldn't be bitching if the cost stayed the same, but it didn't, it went up $50 bucks from last gen. 8Gb used to be $200 here in Canada now it's $250, so disappointed.

cmvsm
Sep 7, 2010, 08:42 PM
After reading the review, I feel like i want to cancel the Pre-order. I feel i got tricked into Apples hype!

How exactly did you get "tricked"? :rolleyes:

rbf1138
Sep 7, 2010, 08:42 PM
How can you consider the camera stills? It looks like crap. All those people talking about how low pixel count doesn't equal bad image quality just feast your eyes on the pictures in this review. This is what we get after all this hype about a camera. I wouldn't be bitching if the cost stayed the same, but it didn't, it went up $50 bucks from last gen. 8Gb used to be $200 here in Canada now it's $250, so disappointed.

I think you're confusing the pixel count of the ipod display, and the quality of the pictures taken by the ipod camera...

freeme007
Sep 7, 2010, 08:43 PM
What were you expecting? Just curious.
Better Camera and GPS!

maus
Sep 7, 2010, 08:44 PM
Better Camera and GPS!
Uh, did you not watch the keynote on Sept. 1? Apple also has the feature/spec list up on their site. Nowhere did they mention a GPS chip or a high quality camera...

Bitcrusher
Sep 7, 2010, 08:44 PM
Well, for good photos I have my camera, :p, ipod camera are for "facebook pics", the HD video recording will be awesome for youtube :)

earth.razer
Sep 7, 2010, 08:44 PM
I think you're confusing the pixel count of the ipod display, and the quality of the pictures taken by the ipod camera...

I was talking about the shockingly low 0.7MP pixel count of the rear camera. People were defending it saying low MP's doesn't mean low qulaity, obiviously they were wrong.

freeme007
Sep 7, 2010, 08:45 PM
Uh, did you not watch the keynote on Sept. 1? Apple also has the feature/spec list up on their site. Nowhere did they mention a GPS chip or a high quality camera...
I did, Jobs said it's an iPhone with out contract!

NJMetsHero
Sep 7, 2010, 08:50 PM
I did, Jobs said it's an iPhone with out contract!

There's a reason there are differences between the iPhone and iPod touch. If you want an iPhone without the contract, you can go into the Apple Store and pay $600 for a contract free iPhone.

ralts
Sep 7, 2010, 08:51 PM
How can you consider the camera stills? It looks like crap. All those people talking about how low pixel count doesn't equal bad image quality just feast your eyes on the pictures in this review. This is what we get after all this hype about a camera. I wouldn't be bitching if the cost stayed the same, but it didn't, it went up $50 bucks from last gen. 8Gb used to be $200 here in Canada now it's $250, so disappointed.

I think the camera is put in there mainly for the ability to take video, and it does it pretty well! It's just as good as the FlipHD, which is a $200 device by itself.

freeme007
Sep 7, 2010, 08:52 PM
There's a reason there are differences between the iPhone and iPod touch. If you want an iPhone without the contract, you can go into the Apple Store and pay $600 for a contract free iPhone.
Yea, thats true. If they make the same as iphone, then no one will buy iphone. Wish the new touch screen is IPS.

maus
Sep 7, 2010, 08:58 PM
The only thing that might disappoint me a bit is if we find out that the RAM isn't 512mb.

Beric
Sep 7, 2010, 09:05 PM
After this review, I'm wondering if it's really time to upgrade from my 3G. I'm dying for a high-res display. But next-year's will surely get a good camera, IPS display, GPS, and double the memory for the price point.

fertilized-egg
Sep 7, 2010, 09:05 PM
How can you consider the camera stills decent? It looks like crap. All those people talking about how low pixel count doesn't equal bad image quality just feast your eyes on the pictures in this review. ... I wouldn't be bitching if the cost stayed the same, but it didn't, it went up $50 bucks from last gen. 8Gb used to be $200 here in Canada now it's $250, so disappointed.

That 8G isn't the "last gen," but "last last gen," as it was just the 2nd gen iPod with inferior parts. So if anything, $250 is a bargain for something that has so much more: a much faster CPU, more RAM, cameras, better screen, etc, etc.

The camera quality is disappointing but as soon as we saw it couldn't do AF we should've known that was going to happen. On the good side the movie looks pretty good.

burgundyyears
Sep 7, 2010, 09:09 PM
On axis with the brightness settings at least seemingly close, the display looks every bit as good as the iPhone4's. A/Bing the same icons, I can't reliably tell a difference of any sort.

http://a.imageshack.us/img824/9008/touch8009.jpg

Off-axis on the long dimension obviously looks worse, but it's not a TV.

I am pleasantly surprised by the video taking performance. Almost makes me wish I got the 64GB! I'll keep my old chunky Sony point and shoot with a real lens and flash for stills, but this blows its VGA video taking far out of the water.

Lousy review though. Could it have been more cursory? Engadget wanted to be first to press and it shows.

Abscissa
Sep 7, 2010, 09:14 PM
I was talking about the shockingly low 0.7MP pixel count of the rear camera. People were defending it saying low MP's doesn't mean low qulaity, obiviously they were wrong.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

rbf1138
Sep 7, 2010, 09:16 PM
PCMag review:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2368786,00.asp

bdavis89
Sep 7, 2010, 09:17 PM
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

I agree that MP isn't everything, however, seeing that Apple didn't play that card with this, but instead just said it takes a certain resolution, they're in essence saying that the camera isn't any good either.

Abscissa
Sep 7, 2010, 09:21 PM
I agree that MP isn't everything, however, seeing that Apple didn't play that card with this, but instead just said it takes a certain resolution, they're in essence saying that the camera isn't any good either.

I'm just saying the event where it was unveiled, no where did they say it took high quality stills, low quality ones, or ANY pictures for that matter. They said HD video recording, nothing more or less of it. Go buy a flipHD for $200...and not be able to take stills. But you can record a video and snapshot the video. But with that you can't listen to music.

But people will never be happy. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

traxxasthomas
Sep 7, 2010, 09:22 PM
I thought it had a HD camera. That video does not look HD to me!!!!

vanzantapple
Sep 7, 2010, 09:23 PM
Screen: NOT the iPhone Screen like SJ said. :(
nuff said.

Back Still Cam: Just a tad better than I expected. All of their pics were taken outside in good lighting. I just wish that they would have taken a few indoor pics plus a face pic or two wouldn't hurt.

Back Video Cam: Much better than expected. :) Download the RAW video and see for yourself. He should have held the camera stationary and recorded objects moving by, but I still like the result.

512MB of RAM: The wait continues.... :confused:

Speed of the CPU: The wait continues... :confused:

Kudos to engadget for showing the angles on the screen.

As for me, I'll probably get one soon unless I get robbed.

ryanvalle
Sep 7, 2010, 09:26 PM
I agree that MP isn't everything, however, seeing that Apple didn't play that card with this, but instead just said it takes a certain resolution, they're in essence saying that the camera isn't any good either.

I personally think the resolution is fine. You're buying a music player, not a digital camera so I don't expect something the quality of a point and shoot. Of course, the expectation is something better than the first gen iPhone and for that reason, I'd consider slamming Apple and their low res choice, but on the other hand, most of these photos will probably only make their way to facebook or email (or some other digital form) and for those purposes, I think the resolution will be just fine.

burgundyyears
Sep 7, 2010, 09:27 PM
I thought it had a HD camera. That video does not look HD to me!!!!

Having just watched it fullscreen on a 1920x1200 monitor, I disagree. Download the raw video.

Having actually listened to it again, the audio recording is surprisingly good too. Actually picks up some subtle street noises that you can distinctly make out in the background, but doesn't click or clack or have apparent wind static problems.

traxxasthomas
Sep 7, 2010, 09:32 PM
Like I said is the camera HD. Is the front camera HD, Can you take photos with the front camera, How many pixs is the front camera, how many pixs is the back camera. :confused:

DOES IT HAVE MAP/GPS

bdavis89
Sep 7, 2010, 09:33 PM
I personally think the resolution is fine. You're buying a music player, not a digital camera so I don't expect something the quality of a point and shoot. Of course, the expectation is something better than the first gen iPhone and for that reason, I'd consider slamming Apple and their low res choice, but on the other hand, most of these photos will probably only make their way to facebook or email (or some other digital form) and for those purposes, I think the resolution will be just fine.

Completely agree with you on this. I've got Verizon, with the Samsung Juke. It has a VGA camera, something like .3MP. Its pretty bad, so i've been waiting for a Touch with a camera, cause its pretty much by multi-media device. Still debating whether or not to get one, but after seeing this review and the pics, I think its gonna be just fine for facebook, etc. Just looking forward to test it in person, and to see what the pictures are like in sub-perfect lighting.

mclaren700
Sep 7, 2010, 09:39 PM
VIBRATION?!?!?! nobody mentioned this, so I should be king of apple.



I have won 5 internets.

Beric
Sep 7, 2010, 09:42 PM
VIBRATION?!?!?! nobody mentioned this, so I should be king of apple.



I have won 5 internets.

Uhhh... there's an article about it on the Front Page (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/09/06/new-ipod-touch-adds-vibration/).

Phil In Idaho
Sep 7, 2010, 09:58 PM
Underwhelming still images - and if the review is to be believed its not due to cost, its due to a desire to make the iPod thinner. What a stupid set of priorities from a company that "doesn't ship junk."

burgundyyears
Sep 7, 2010, 10:13 PM
Underwhelming still images - and if the review is to be believed its not due to cost, its due to a desire to make the iPod thinner. What a stupid set of priorities from a company that "doesn't ship junk."

Crap, now I have go dig my DSLR out of the garbage. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should just pretend that it can't take stills at all, if it'll make you feel better.

tachnyrus
Sep 7, 2010, 10:28 PM
Is anyone actually surprised?

The camera sucks for stills and is good for video. The retina display isn't IPS. Only people who believed otherwise were the entitlement junkies.

I'm a little surprised by the not-so-great FaceTime performance though, especially after the nearly flawless implementation in the iPhone 4.

Phil In Idaho
Sep 7, 2010, 10:34 PM
Crap, now I have go dig my DSLR out of the garbage. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should just pretend that it can't take stills at all, if it'll make you feel better.

Oh goodie another "if you don't like what Apple gives you - carry around a DSLR" macho ******** response. I have more high quality digital cameras than you can shake a stick at and I do carry a DSLR around much of the time, but that doesn't mean Apple gets a pass for including a crap camera for the sake of making the iPod Touch 2 mm thinner. Steve's anorexic obsession is giving the consumer a poorer quality product. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy an iPod Touch, in fact I think you should buy dozens of them, it really helps my stock portfolio. But if you think this is the best Apple can do, think again.

gta50419
Sep 7, 2010, 10:39 PM
Like I said is the camera HD. Is the front camera HD, Can you take photos with the front camera, How many pixs is the front camera, how many pixs is the back camera. :confused:

DOES IT HAVE MAP/GPS

it only takes hd video (that video is probably the lowest hd i ever seen though):confused:
front cam vga
you can take pic with front cam
no one know the pixs of front cam....but it's verry low
back cam is only 0.7 mp's:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

it doesnt have gps

burgundyyears
Sep 7, 2010, 10:51 PM
Oh goodie another "if you don't like what Apple gives you - carry around a DSLR" macho ******** response. I have more high quality digital cameras than you can shake a stick at and I do carry a DSLR around much of the time, but that doesn't mean Apple gets a pass for including a crap camera for the sake of making the iPod Touch 2 mm thinner. Steve's anorexic obsession is giving the consumer a poorer quality product. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy an iPod Touch, in fact I think you should buy dozens of them, it really helps my stock portfolio. But if you think this is the best Apple can do, think again.

Well of course they can offer more. It's called the iPhone 4. Just $599/$699 out the door without a contract. Apple is not going to cannibalize its highest end mobile product. People who think they're ever going to literally get an iPhone minus the cell radio are completely nuts. It would almost certainly be bad for business, and as an investor I think you would appreciate that. The two products aren't even in the same market, despite the many, many similarities they share.

Phil In Idaho
Sep 7, 2010, 11:17 PM
Well of course they can offer more. It's called the iPhone 4. Just $599/$699 out the door without a contract. Apple is not going to cannibalize its highest end mobile product. People who think they're ever going to literally get an iPhone minus the cell radio are completely nuts. It would almost certainly be bad for business, and as an investor I think you would appreciate that. The two products aren't even in the same market, despite the many, many similarities they share.

Well, if you believe the Engaget review (the point of this thread) the whole reason for the sub standard rear cameras is to fit the much thinner case, not for budget reasons. But it's ok with me if you think Apple deserves a pass for putting a low quality camera in an iPT just to make it 2mm thinner. Me, I think I'll pass.

Be well.

fel10
Sep 7, 2010, 11:25 PM
I'm actually happy with the way the pictures look. I was expecting something horrendous, but it actually takes descent looking pictures!!!!

burgundyyears
Sep 7, 2010, 11:38 PM
Well, if you believe the Engaget review (the point of this thread) the whole reason for the sub standard rear cameras is to fit the much thinner case, not for budget reasons. But it's ok with me if you think Apple deserves a pass for putting a low quality camera in an iPT just to make it 2mm thinner. Me, I think I'll pass.

Be well.

If by "deserve a pass" you mean "it's still a great product," that would be the reasonable conclusion. The whole rear camera issue is much ado about nothing. It's a marginal feature of the product at best, and even tiny 5MP sensors don't hold a candle to anything approaching a real camera with real optics in it. It would still be a great product without any rear camera at all, just like the three generations before it. This one comes with a bonus 720p video camera. Shame on apple, I guess.

Neebee
Sep 7, 2010, 11:39 PM
For me, I am actually disappointed. Although I'll be getting the touch for the wife and to use myself when travelling, it's not ideal and quite pricey considering that for less than $250 one can buy a POS mini notebook or whatever they're called which does a lot more. These babies havd USB slot, have a lot more storage and can also handle skype and VOIP well, unlike the touch or iphone 4 which has reportedly been said to offer choppy performance when doing video conferencing or VOIP.

Sadly, I expected more from this price standpoint. Thicker is actually preferred over thinness in my books. In any event, I anxiously wait to buy the darn thing from Costco. If it proves to be a dud or we're unhappy with it, we're returning it (within three months)....gotta luv Costco. :D

burgundyyears
Sep 7, 2010, 11:45 PM
For me, I am actually disappointed. Although I'll be getting the touch for the wife and to use myself when travelling, it's not ideal and quite pricey considering that for less than $250 one can buy a POS mini notebook or whatever they're called which does a lot more. These babies havd USB slot, have a lot more storage and can also handle skype and VOIP well, unlike the touch or iphone 4 which has reportedly been said to offer choppy performance when doing video conferencing or VOIP.

I own a netbook and have for getting on to 2 years. It's nice to have, but the market for netbooks is starting to shrink already for a reason. They're not even remotely convenient as a handheld device. They're just little, slow laptops. The atom processors can barely run video chat in Skype, and your battery life goes right into the toilet when you do. If you or your wife are disappointed in the touch as a mobile/handheld computer, you will be devastated with a netbook. Just FYI.

Neebee
Sep 7, 2010, 11:51 PM
I own a netbook and have for getting on to 2 years. It's nice to have, but the market for netbooks is starting to shrink already for a reason. They're not even remotely convenient as a handheld device. They're just little, slow laptops. The atom processors can barely run video chat in Skype, and your battery life goes right into the toilet when you do. If you or your wife are disappointed in the touch as a mobile/handheld computer, you will be devastated with a netbook. Just FYI.

Wow....I had no idea. Thanks for sharing.

terraphantm
Sep 7, 2010, 11:53 PM
I was talking about the shockingly low 0.7MP pixel count of the rear camera. People were defending it saying low MP's doesn't mean low qulaity, obiviously they were wrong.

Well... that's true to an extent. For the quality of a picture, by far the two most important factors (besides the photographer) are the lens quality and sensor quality. A 3MP digital SLR with an excellent lens will shoot better pictures than any point and shoot out there. But a 15MP dSLR will shoot even better pictures assuming the sensor wasn't made by morons. There is a limit to the megapixel limit - eventually you end up reaching the physical limits of what an ideal lens can capture. In that case, any increase in resolution will be worthless. Also, it is worth noting that a 3MP sensor will not produce images worth printing since typically you want 300-600dpi for a print.

The iPod touch however is not a digital SLR. It's not even on the caliber of a point and shoot. It has everything going against it. It's got a tiny sensor, with a tiny resolution, and a tiny lens. It *does* shoot better than some of the earlier cell phone cameras, like my razr v3i that was 1.3MP. But it's not going to keep up with the iPhone. If apple had to choose a .7MP sensor for the iPod touch, you know the lens is probably pretty ******. They couldn't fit a lens with decent resolving power in there, so there was no point in going with a high-res sensor. (The decision may've been the otherway around. Either way, the resolution is a good hint to PQ in this case)

burgundyyears
Sep 8, 2010, 12:04 AM
Wow....I had no idea. Thanks for sharing.

Let me further clarify to say that if you would return a touch because it didn't meet your needs for handheld communications, a netbook would not be an appropriate substitute.

If you actually want a little, inexpensive, and a bit slow laptop that you navigate and use like you do your desktop or full-size laptop, they're great.

Ds92
Sep 8, 2010, 12:13 AM
Cnet's review with video:

http://reviews.cnet.com/mp3-players/apple-ipod-touch-2010/4505-6490_7-34167378.html?autoplay=true&tag=cnetRiver


It looks so pretty! Can't wait to get one!

mosx
Sep 8, 2010, 01:53 AM
I don't see whats so bad about the still pictures from Engadget's review. For such a low resolution, they look great. They're the perfect size and quality for quick Facebook or Twitter updates. Which is exactly what they were meant for.

The raw video file they posted looks fantastic too.

Overall, despite the low resolution, the camera is good. Yes it should have been higher resolution. But its 100x better than nothing. Especially for those who want an iPhone but don't want to spend the couple thousand dollars for AT&T service over the course of two years.

If I didn't already have an iPhone 4 I'd get one and be perfectly happy with it.

Outrun1986
Sep 8, 2010, 10:51 AM
I still don't get the complaining, of course I don't have this yet, but don't forget the other things you can do with the camera like apps that use it will now be available to touch users. As for the pricing, would you rather pay $299 for last gen's 32GB model with no cameras and a lower quality display, or pay the same price for this year's upgraded model. If you want a cheaper price for an 8GB than $229 go out and buy last year's model used or a brand new one off ebay for a lower price. I still think they could have given us no cameras and just updated the display, ram and a few other things and called it the new touch, and people would buy it just as much as they would if it had all the stuff that the new touch does have.

Neebee
Sep 8, 2010, 10:36 PM
I still don't get the complaining.
It's really quite basic: 0.7 MP is really old technology. Any device that has a camera feature is larger than 0.7 MP. Maybe it would've been better to have no camera than one like this?

Any way, the real question one should ask themselves is how often do u take pics with your smartphone or device and what do you do with it. Apple probaby surveyed people or did their own research and showed that most people use the phone or device to upload directly to twitter or facebook. It doesn't mean that everyone's needs are like that. Everyone's needs, wants, and expectations is different.

People can debate, discuss, or rationalize endlessly the touches 0.7 MP lens. I don't see any person being more right (or wrong) in their opinion than the person taking the other side.