"new" iPod Touch? -> That´s it??

[Francois22]

wow,...you can control the volume... that´s it?
i´m ****in disappointed,...

[Dublo7]

It's not exactly ideal for an upgrade (from 1g to 2g), but it's nice if you're just buying a Touch.

[graemesangels]

While it wasn't a mind blowing upgrade it did include more than just volume buttons (50% longer battery life, nike+, volume buttons, new svelte design, inclusion of v2.1, and price drops of about $100 per model).

I can't see many touch users upgrading but it does give someone who was on the fence previously more reasons to consider it.

[hogfaninga]

While it wasn't a mind blowing upgrade it did include more than just volume buttons (50% longer battery life, nike+, volume buttons, new svelte design, inclusion of v2.1, and price drops of about $100 per model).

I can't see many touch users upgrading but it does give someone who was on the fence previously more reasons to consider it.

Can you provide me the proof where it will get 50% better battery life than the gen 1's?

[Scarpad]

If it had a better screen I would have.

[Bowlerguy10]

Can you provide me the proof where it will get 50% better battery life than the gen 1's?

How about you watch the goddamn conference? It's mentioned in the first couple minutes of the new touch introduction.........

[hogfaninga]

How about you watch the goddamn conference? It's mentioned in the first couple minutes of the new touch introduction.........

You must have a lot of class to use that language. I guess anyone can be tough on the internet.

I asked a simple question. If you don't like it then ignore it.

[speakerwizard]

what would you want in the touch without pricing out of its market? i personally think the speaker is a feature to far, with a lot of kids buying these buses will get a lot more annoying lol

[tMac85]

How about you watch the goddamn conference? It's mentioned in the first couple minutes of the new touch introduction.........

yeah reallllll classy.

we love people like you here on macrumors!

[pismodude2]

How about you watch the goddamn conference? It's mentioned in the first couple minutes of the new touch introduction.........

The old Touch could do 22hrs of audio and 5hrs video.

The new one can play 36hrs of audio and 6hrs video.

36/22= 164% (64% better)
6/5= 120% (20% better)

So it is over 50% better at playing music, but only 20% better with movies. If the battery was 50% better, everything (like video) would see a minimum of 50% better run time.

CONCLUSION: The battery is better, but only slightly. Power saving design improvements have been made to allow music to play using less energy.

[sushi]

While it wasn't a mind blowing upgrade it did include more than just volume buttons (50% longer battery life, nike+, volume buttons, new svelte design, inclusion of v2.1, and price drops of about $100 per model).
And a speaker. :)

I can't see many touch users upgrading but it does give someone who was on the fence previously more reasons to consider it.
Agree.

The old Touch could do 22hrs of audio and 5hrs video.

The new one can play 36hrs of audio and 6hrs video.

36/22= 164% (64% better)
6/5= 120% (20% better)

So it is over 50% better at playing music, but only 20% better with movies. If the battery was 50% better, everything (like video) would see a minimum of 50% better run time.

CONCLUSION: The battery is better, but only slightly. Power saving design improvements have been made to allow music to play using less energy.
Personally, I would call that a significant improvement.

Audio --> 64% improvement

Video --> 20% improvement

All the while keeping it thin. :)

[ricardo.hudson]

The old Touch could do 22hrs of audio and 5hrs video.

The new one can play 36hrs of audio and 6hrs video.

36/22= 164% (64% better)
6/5= 120% (20% better)

So it is over 50% better at playing music, but only 20% better with movies. If the battery was 50% better, everything (like video) would see a minimum of 50% better run time.

CONCLUSION: The battery is better, but only slightly. Power saving design improvements have been made to allow music to play using less energy.

I would just check the fine print, apple now says that battery life testing was performed with the touch associated with a Wi-Fi network - i dont think this was true with the old touch, and it isn't true for the iPhone 3G either which it specifically says had Wi-Fi inactive.

[aethelbert]

What did you expect out of it? Just because a bunch of armchair CEOs on the internet decide that GPS, camera, and a missile launcher are all coming on an iPod doesn't mean that it's gonna happen. Pretty typical update for iPods, especially taking into account what the iPhone got in June.

[stainlessliquid]

With the exception of the nano what other ipod featured a huge upgrade from the last one? If the touch didnt have upgradeable firmware then the 2g would be a lot more special (like additional apps would have been a huge update).

[puffnstuff]

All I ask is that they stretch the screen and move the home button to the side. Is that so hard?

Oh does anyone know when an actual MAJOR update like the nano is going to come? I'm going to stick with my 1g until then.

[Funplex]

Im kinda glad because I don't feel so outdated with a gen 1 touch. Ditto for a friend who JUST bought their touch like-- yesterday.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I think the update to the touch was nice. Why isn't anyone complaining about the update to the classic. It was a downgrade in capacity and it didn't get any of the features the iPod nano did, no accelerometer or genius lists, nothing. If anything this just shows that the classic is being phased out :( I guess I need to grab one while I can.

EDIT: oops. I guess there is a genius feature for the classic, but still no accelerometer.

[4DThinker]

Does anyone know when an actual MAJOR update like the nano is going to come? I'm going to stick with my 1g until then.You'll have a long wait. A small device like the Nano is trivial to improve, mainly by making it (or it's screen) bigger. The Touch's 3.5" screen is about as big as it could get and still be shirt-pocketable. The new touch has been changed about the only way they could. They made it thinner. They won't get much thinner as then there wouldn't be enough thickness for the dock connector/headphone jack.

[saxman]

The touch and the iphones are platforms - and in distictly different spheres. I can't see them giving the touch the same physical features as the iphone. What would be the appeal of the phone if the touch was physically the same sans the monthy cost? It would be interesting though if Apple was the cell carrier.

[puffnstuff]

You'll have a long wait. A small device like the Nano is trivial to improve, mainly by making it (or it's screen) bigger. The Touch's 3.5" screen is about as big as it could get and still be shirt-pocketable. The new touch has been changed about the only way they could. They made it thinner. They won't get much thinner as then there wouldn't be enough thickness for the dock connector/headphone jack.

It would still be pocketable with a larger screen. No changing the size just filling in the space where the top black part and home button is.

I'm not too concern with other features people keep begging for like cameras,mics etc. Because I think someone somewhere will make add-ons.

I didn't get the classic downgrade either when I was reading a liveblog I thought they missed typed then I did a search and found out its correct.

EDIT: It seems to me Steve Jobs has a skinny fetish.

[upsguy27]

Why is everyone complaining that there's no camera, or no GPS, or no whatever? Apple will not add a camera or GPS to the iPod Touch; they don't want it to get too close to the iPhone in features. The iPod Touch isn't meant to do all the things the iPhone does like camera and GPS, it's supposed to be an iPod and a apps and games device. Why would you need GPS anyway? You would have to be connected to WiFi to get directions, and if you're using GPS to go somewhere, you aren't likely to find WiFi hotspots everywhere.

[stainlessliquid]

You'll have a long wait. A small device like the Nano is trivial to improve, mainly by making it (or it's screen) bigger. The Touch's 3.5" screen is about as big as it could get and still be shirt-pocketable. The new touch has been changed about the only way they could. They made it thinner. They won't get much thinner as then there wouldn't be enough thickness for the dock connector/headphone jack.

The touch screen could use a major update, its pretty low resolution for its size. The are japanese phones with smaller screens and resolutions almost twice as high. But apple cant really update its screen anyways because of third party apps designed for a single resolution. They should at least bump the contrast though.

[sushi]

The touch screen could use a major update, its pretty low resolution for its size. The are japanese phones with smaller screens and resolutions almost twice as high.
Examples please.

But apple cant really update its screen anyways because of third party apps designed for a single resolution.
Reference please.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Reference please.

I don't have a reference, but I know for a fact that the apps would need to at least be updated to be able to run on a screen with higher resolution.

[QuarterSwede]

I don't have a reference, but I know for a fact that the apps would need to at least be updated to be able to run on a screen with higher resolution.
His point was mainly what Japanese screens are higher in resolution than the iPod Touches? It's already at 160ppi! That's a lot more dense (more than twice) than the computer your typing on. If it gets any more so it'll be hard to tell and be a waste of money. It's already hard to read text on the thing when your zoomed out even though the text is crisp and clear. Personally, I think it looks great.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

His point was mainly what Japanese screens are higher in resolution than the iPod Touches? It's already at 160ppi! That's a lot more dense (more than twice) than the computer your typing on. If it gets any more so it'll be hard to tell and be a waste of money. It's already hard to read text on the thing when your zoomed out even though the text is crisp and clear. Personally, I think it looks great.

Well I believe that there are higher ppi screens. The blackberry bold's screen is half the size of iPhone's screen, but the same resolution. So... that poster was right.

[sushi]

I don't have a reference, but I know for a fact that the apps would need to at least be updated to be able to run on a screen with higher resolution.
I don't know, but wanted to check.

If the iPhone/Touch is similar to the Newton, then the updates are minor.

[Francois22]

well,...at least I expected 64 gb,...

bad :( I wanted one,... but I don´t pay more than the classic costs for a 32 gb Pod,...
I think, I keep my cute classic

[ricardo.hudson]

God i don't really see what some of you people were expecting, but how can this update be bad, the touch got two features that people were begging for - a speaker, and volume controls, oh and then apple dropped the prices... what were you expecting exactly?? a free ipod touch with GPS and 3G and bluetooth like some idiots were predicting was gospel truth even though it was blatent apple would never add these things to the touch...

[agargar]

God i don't really see what some of you people were expecting, but how can this update be bad, the touch got two features that people were begging for - a speaker, and volume controls, oh and then apple dropped the prices... what were you expecting exactly?? a free ipod touch with GPS and 3G and bluetooth like some idiots were predicting was gospel truth even though it was blatent apple would never add these things to the touch...

I was only expecting a better battery! So, for me is OK.

And the speakers and the microphone opens the door to a wi-fi telephon app!!!

[danimal99]

Chalk me up for another who is happy that the new Touch isn't changed very much. I got my Touch in late July for my birthday, and if the new one had been significantly better, it would really suck.

:)

[Tosser]

Why is everyone complaining that there's no camera, or no GPS, or no whatever? Apple will not add a camera or GPS to the iPod Touch; they don't want it to get too close to the iPhone in features. The iPod Touch isn't meant to do all the things the iPhone does like camera and GPS, it's supposed to be an iPod and a apps and games device. Why would you need GPS anyway? You would have to be connected to WiFi to get directions, and if you're using GPS to go somewhere, you aren't likely to find WiFi hotspots everywhere.

Aaaarrrgggh!!

Why do Apple fanboys continuously utter such nonsense!? Apparently you guys have no clue as to what GPS is, what is needed, what is not, and what turn-by-turn entails.


Wi-Fi is NOT needed for turn-by-turn directions. Do you think all the taxis, travellers, hikers and boaters have to close to a wi-fi spot to use their chart plotters (which a turn-by-turn GPS is essentially)?

[iCantwait]

im glad the ipt didnt have GPS, and i think speakers is more than it deserves.
But i would of sacrificed my $5 bet about GPS for the sake of people like the OP bitchin' on about how much it sucks - WELL GO FIND A BETTER MP3 PLAYER THEN COME BACK AND JUDGE

[wonderbread57]

Yeah, with that whole "touch 2,1" firmware observation thing we were expecting a product overhaul not.. whatever this was.

Common tablet already ffs

[mcnicks]

iPhone applications already know how to adjust to resolution changes - it happens every time you turn the iPhone on its side. I seem to recall the software guy talking about how the interface builder automatically handles the resolution changes by using 'stretchable' whitespace to centre buttons and such.

[Tosser]

im glad the ipt didnt have GPS, and i think speakers is more than it deserves.

Except for your shouting in your post, the thing about the touch merely being an mp3 player (contrary to what most seem to think), and the part of the GPS, I have to agree with you on one point: The speaker.

I can see why people want it to play those silly games, but speakers in portable gear annoy me to no end. I can see how they _can_ be useful, but all I see are stupid looser teenagers using their tinny speakers everywhere and anywhere. Sigh. We'll now have more of those stupid feggers pestering their surroundings. :(


Common tablet already ffs

It's "Come on", not "common"*

common |ˈkɒmən|
adjective ( -moner , -monest )
1 occurring, found, or done often; prevalent : salt and pepper are the two most common seasonings | it's common for a woman to be depressed after giving birth. See notes at prevalent, universal .
• (of an animal or plant) found or living in relatively large numbers; not rare.
• ordinary; of ordinary qualities; without special rank or position : the dwellings of common people | a common soldier.
• (of a quality) of a sort or level to be generally expected : common decency.
• of the most familiar type : the common or vernacular name.
• denoting the most widespread or typical species of an animal or plant : the common blue spruce.
2 showing a lack of taste and refinement; vulgar.
3 shared by, coming from, or done by more than one : the two republics' common border | problems common to both communities.
• belonging to, open to, or affecting the whole of a community or the public : common land.
• Mathematics belonging to two or more quantities.
4 Grammar (in Latin and certain other languages) of or denoting a gender of nouns that are conventionally regarded as masculine or feminine, contrasting with neuter.
• (in English) denoting a noun that refers to individuals of either sex (e.g., teacher).
5 Prosody (of a syllable) able to be either short or long.
6 Law (of a crime) of relatively minor importance : common assault.
noun
1 a piece of open land for public use, esp. in a village or town.
2 (in the Christian Church) a form of service used for each of a group of occasions.
PHRASES
the common good the benefit or interests of all : it is time our elected officials stood up for the common good.
common ground a point or argument accepted by both sides in a dispute. • ideas or interests shared by different people : artists from different cultural backgrounds found common ground.
common knowledge something known by most people.
common or garden Brit., informal of the usual or ordinary type : a yak is your basic common or garden cow, only bigger, hairier, and wilder.
common property a thing or things held jointly. • something known by most people.
the common touch the ability to get along with or appeal to ordinary people.
in common 1 in joint use or possession; shared : car engines have nothing in common with aircraft engines. 2 of joint interest : the two men had little in common. See also tenancy in common .
in common with in the same way as : in common with other officers, I had to undertake guard duties.
DERIVATIVES
commonness |ˈkɑmənˈnəs| |ˈkɒmənnɪs| noun
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French comun (adjective), from Latin communis.


come on 1 (of a state or condition) start to arrive or happen : she felt a mild case of the sniffles coming on | it was coming on to rain. 2 (also come upon) meet or find by chance. 3 [in imperative ] said when encouraging someone to do something or to hurry up or when one feels that someone is wrong or foolish : Come on! We must hurry! • said or shouted to express support, for example for a sports team.
come on to informal make sexual advances toward.

[Tosser]

Delete

[Sesshi]

Well I believe that there are higher ppi screens. The blackberry bold's screen is half the size of iPhone's screen, but the same resolution. So... that poster was right.

The N810 has an 800 x 480 res on a 4" screen. And there's more - and you don't need to look at Japanese phones for references. Cost-wise, size-wise, it's not a bad compromise, but a higher-res screen would make the interface pop a little more.

To the OP I'd ask what you expected given what else is out there?

I think I'll probably skip this generation. I usually use the Touch with a remote on the go so on-unit volume control is not that big a factor and the new features are not sufficiently compelling to get me away from my $1500 (two at home, one for regular use) investment in Touches. Could something like the Nano actually use a dedicated volume control? Yes, but Apple isn't going to do it.

[MacinJosh]

I'm glad I bought my 1st gen 32GB in June instead of waiting for nothing.

Joshua.

[atomheartmother]

The old Touch could do 22hrs of audio and 5hrs video.

The new one can play 36hrs of audio and 6hrs video.

36/22= 164% (64% better)
6/5= 120% (20% better)

So it is over 50% better at playing music, but only 20% better with movies. If the battery was 50% better, everything (like video) would see a minimum of 50% better run time.

CONCLUSION: The battery is better, but only slightly. Power saving design improvements have been made to allow music to play using less energy.

Is this a function of specific hardware design differences or differences in the battery? In other words, if I swap the battery out for a new one down the road (which is inevitable), can I get increased battery life like in the 2G with my 1G?

[goosnarrggh]

I think the update to the touch was nice. Why isn't anyone complaining about the update to the classic. It was a downgrade in capacity and it didn't get any of the features the iPod nano did, no accelerometer or genius lists, nothing. If anything this just shows that the classic is being phased out :( I guess I need to grab one while I can.

EDIT: oops. I guess there is a genius feature for the classic, but still no accelerometer.

Putting an accelerometer (shake-to-shuffle) feature in the iPod Classic would be begging for mechanical failures in the hard disk.

As for the ability to detect orientation... Well, my guess is that the major benefit of that in the Nano comes from the fact that the screen is now in a portrait orientation by default to allow it to take up a larger percentage of the overall surface area. A portrait orientation in a media player is less versatile, because it is more-or-less opposite the aspect ratio of most videos, and the traditionally horizontal coverflow view would also be somewhat compromised. So the Nano can be rotated when appropriate to obtain a landscape screen if desired. With the ability to detect orientation, the OS can decide which presentation style is most appropriate.

The iPod Classic's screen is still in a landscape orientation by default and I'd guess that Apple's ergonomic designers probably saw little benefit in holding it sideways, so there's no need to complicate the design by incorporating the extra hardware to detect orientation.

The Classic also got support for the new-style remote control headphones, and my bet is that it also got the voice memo software (but I haven't read about that for sure).

[Scarpad]

The touch screen could use a major update, its pretty low resolution for its size. The are japanese phones with smaller screens and resolutions almost twice as high. But apple cant really update its screen anyways because of third party apps designed for a single resolution. They should at least bump the contrast though.

I agree the screen is pretty lackluster on the device. No vivid colors and very low contrast.

[Dale Sorel]

I'm glad I bought my 1st gen 32GB in June instead of waiting for nothing.

Ditto (except I got an 8gb in June) :cool:

[Jelite]

Chalk me up for another who is happy that the new Touch isn't changed very much. I got my Touch in late July for my birthday, and if the new one had been significantly better, it would really suck.

:)

Same here, well, bought mine in May and was hoping there was no significant improvement else i would have been a bit miffed.

[upsguy27]

Aaaarrrgggh!!

Why do Apple fanboys continuously utter such nonsense!? Apparently you guys have no clue as to what GPS is, what is needed, what is not, and what turn-by-turn entails.


Wi-Fi is NOT needed for turn-by-turn directions. Do you think all the taxis, travellers, hikers and boaters have to close to a wi-fi spot to use their chart plotters (which a turn-by-turn GPS is essentially)?

Sorry, I copied and pasted that from my other post before I realized that. No need to get mad.

[Tosser]

Sorry, I copied and pasted that from my other post before I realized that. No need to get mad.

LOL, I'm not mad. A little impatient, perhaps, but not mad. Don't worry :)

[TuffLuffJimmy]

LOL, I'm not mad. A little impatient, perhaps, but not mad. Don't worry :)

why should you be mad? You're wrong after all. The touch would need to be in wifi range in order to download the maps. Otherwise you would need the maps stored locally which would take up gigabytes in storage and wouldn't work with google maps. Nor could the info be transferee through GPS as it's too slow.

[ccfoodog]

why should you be mad? You're wrong after all. The touch would need to be in wifi range in order to download the maps. Otherwise you would need the maps stored locally which would take up gigabytes in storage and wouldn't work with google maps.

Just had a funny thought. Set up a squid proxy server on the iPod and run Google maps through the cache!

(Oh my. Did I actually post on this thread?!)

-john

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Just had a funny thought. Set up a squid proxy server on the iPod and run Google maps through the cache!

(Oh my. Did I actually post on this thread?!)

-john

alright who wants to put multi-gigabyte map files on your touch now?

[ccfoodog]

alright who wants to put multi-gigabyte map files on your touch now?

1) Somehow my Garmin 60Cx which came with 64MB of storage managed to provide useful base maps.

2) The nice thing is one size does not fit all. You can allocate megabytes or gigabytes to map cache.

3) Maps don't have to be very large to be useful. I could only save maps of my city for example which would be *very* useful, and not take much space.

4) We *have* gigabytes available if we so choose. It is just a question of how we want to spend it.

I'm not trying to argue that the Touch should or should not have a GPS. It's just sort of my knee-jerk response to the idea that there is only one way to skin the cat.

-john

[Tosser]

why should you be mad? You're wrong after all. The touch would need to be in wifi range in order to download the maps. Otherwise you would need the maps stored locally which would take up gigabytes in storage and wouldn't work with google maps.
Erm, I'm not wrong at all. Do you not learn anything?
I am aware that the iPhone at present uses google maps, but there is no rule that states a turn-by-turn GPS have to use google maps.

Secondly, most GPS's/chartplotters don't use "gigabytes" in storage, nor have they a need to work with Google Maps. The google maps could be used just like it is used now, but there are no need to use such a thing on a turn-by-turn GPS.

You should take a look at proper chartplotters/turn-by-turn GPSs before continueing with your nonsense about what is needed for a chartplotter to work.
I guess the fanboy-seal is harder to break for some than for others.


I guess this says it all, though:
Nor could the info be transferee through GPS as it's too slow.

You really show here how little you know.
The "transfer" CAN'T be "slow", as there IS no transfer going on. Absolutely naught. It's not communication satellites!

The satellites that constitutes the Global Positioning System, GPS, can't transfer anything, but they do transmit time derived from an atomic clock. Hence the need to have as many channels on your GPS (receiver) as possible. It's the time delay that gives you a fix.

"Transfer speed is too slow" :rolleyes:

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Erm, I'm not wrong at all. Do you not learn anything?
I am aware that the iPhone at present uses google maps, but there is no rule that states a turn-by-turn GPS have to use google maps.

Secondly, most GPS's/chartplotters don't use "gigabytes" in storage, nor have they a need to work with Google Maps. The google maps could be used just like it is used now, but there are no need to use such a thing on a turn-by-turn GPS.

You should take a look at proper chartplotters/turn-by-turn GPSs before continueing with your nonsense about what is needed for a chartplotter to work.
I guess the fanboy-seal is harder to break for some than for others.


I guess this says it all, though:


You really show here how little you know.
The "transfer" CAN'T be "slow", as there IS no transfer going on. Absolutely naught. It's not communication satellites!

The satellites that constitutes the Global Positioning System, GPS, can't transfer anything, but they do transmit time derived from an atomic clock. Hence the need to have as many channels on your GPS (receiver) as possible. It's the time delay that gives you a fix.

"Transfer speed is too slow" :rolleyes:

So you're saying that it won't work with google maps, an application that is heavily integrated into the iPhone OS and that in order to use the GPS you would need another (that's two) map applications? Riiiiiiiight. Nice thinking, bud. Try again next year.

as for your comment about GPS not transfering anything. Yes, GPS does not transfer anything, but the GPS satelites (yes, they do more than one thing, this function is used in some GPS devices) can be used for moving data, however it is much slower than wifi or even edge. :rolleyes: but thanks for playing, try again.... again.

[Tosser]

So you're saying that it won't work with google maps, an application that is heavily integrated into the iPhone OS and that in order to use the GPS you would need another (that's two) map applications? Riiiiiiiight. Nice thinking, bud. Try again next year.
On the other hand, you're saying that in order to have GPS, one has to make use of the cellular network, will have to use google maps, and will have to have gigabytes upon gigabytes of maps, and that a GPS satellite can be used for communication, that a GPS receiver also transmits to the satellites and so on.
Yes, I'm saying that with just 128MB or 256MB you could have a pretty decent map of the world on your turn-by-turn GPS. However, if you wanted more detail, you could use google maps to look at other things.
The mere notion that google maps is needed for this is ridiculous, and even more ridiculous is the notion that it would be better to use google maps than make some much smaller maps, utterly negating the need for gigabytes upon gigabytes of maps and a constant connection to download maps from.
Yes, the classic solution is much better than downloading maps constantly.



as for your comment about GPS not transfering anything. Yes, GPS does not transfer anything, but the GPS satelites (yes, they do more than one thing, this function is used in some GPS devices) can be used for moving data, however it is much slower than wifi or even edge. :rolleyes: but thanks for playing, try again.... again.

You can ask me to try again as many times as you please. But I'll give you the chance to say EXACTLY what else the GPS satellite does. You cannot move data with the satellite. It's a geostationary atomic clock hovering above your head.
What functions do you claim are done by the satellites? You do realise that means your GPS-receiver will have to have a transmitter to send information to the satellite in order for your claims to be true, right?
Come now, show the people here that your argumentation is not as ignorant as it sounds.

If you STILL don't get it and insist that the GPS satellites in connection with, say, a turn-by-turn GPS/chartplotter/GPS-receiver is able to move data around - as in you being able to send something to the GPS satellite, I suggest you take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS

You really need to get your research done.

Edit/add: Btw, It's funny you're trying to qualify your statement about moving data by stating it is much slower "than wi-fi and "even" edge" …
The thing is, even satellite phones doesn't have anything close to ordinary GSM/GPRS speeds.

Here's a link so you can see how slow GSM, GPRS and so on is:

http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/gprs/class.shtml


Now, go here, and you'll see just HOW SLOW data transfer on dedicates satellite telephones are (no, they're not GPSs):
http://www.thetravelinsider.info/phones/aboutsatellitephoneservice.htm

However, all such services have very slow data bandwidths, typically in the realm of about 2400 baud (ten to twenty times slower than a regular dialup modem, and 50+ times slower than broadband).

Add the slow data transfer rate to the reasonably high cost per minute of airtime, and you won't want to use your satellite phone to access the internet for casual web surfing!

That's 2.4kbps. 2.4!

So, yes, even on telephone satellites like Iridium the data transfer is much slower than edge (what isn't). How ever, as there is no data transfer from your GPS receiver to a GPS satellite, that has to take the prize as the slowest connection ever, as you can "send and send" to a GPS satellite, yet nothing will ever happen as it's an atomic clock broadcasting GMT/UTC (Greenwich Mean Time/Universal Time Coordinated).

[MaxPower49]

I agree that there probably aren't enough improvements for a 1st gen touch owner to upgrade to the new model... but the improvements and price drops are nice for people (like me) who were planning to get a touch anyway. I was really hoping for 64gb, but I guess I'll have to settle for 32gb for now.

Also, there are reports that the new model has a bluetooth chip in it, which could pave the way for GPS with the use of an external bluetooth gps receiver.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

On the other hand, you're saying that in order to have GPS, one has to make use of the cellular network, will have to use google maps, and will have to have gigabytes upon gigabytes of maps, and that a GPS satellite can be used for communication, that a GPS receiver also transmits to the satellites and so on.
Yes, I'm saying that with just 128MB or 256MB you could have a pretty decent map of the world on your turn-by-turn GPS. However, if you wanted more detail, you could use google maps to look at other things.
The mere notion that google maps is needed for this is ridiculous, and even more ridiculous is the notion that it would be better to use google maps than make some much smaller maps, utterly negating the need for gigabytes upon gigabytes of maps and a constant connection to download maps from.
Yes, the classic solution is much better than downloading maps constantly.





You can ask me to try again as many times as you please. But I'll give you the chance to say EXACTLY what else the GPS satellite does. You cannot move data with the satellite. It's a geostationary atomic clock hovering above your head.
What functions do you claim are done by the satellites? You do realise that means your GPS-receiver will have to have a transmitter to send information to the satellite in order for your claims to be true, right?
Come now, show the people here that your argumentation is not as ignorant as it sounds.

If you STILL don't get it and insist that the GPS satellites in connection with, say, a turn-by-turn GPS/chartplotter/GPS-receiver is able to move data around - as in you being able to send something to the GPS satellite, I suggest you take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS

You really need to get your research done.

Edit/add: Btw, It's funny you're trying to qualify your statement about moving data by stating it is much slower "than wi-fi and "even" edge" …
The thing is, even satellite phones doesn't have anything close to ordinary GSM/GPRS speeds.

Here's a link so you can see how slow GSM, GPRS and so on is:

http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/gprs/class.shtml


Now, go here, and you'll see just HOW SLOW data transfer on dedicates satellite telephones are (no, they're not GPSs):
http://www.thetravelinsider.info/phones/aboutsatellitephoneservice.htm



That's 2.4kbps. 2.4!

So, yes, even on telephone satellites like Iridium the data transfer is much slower than edge (what isn't). How ever, as there is no data transfer from your GPS receiver to a GPS satellite, that has to take the prize as the slowest connection ever, as you can "send and send" to a GPS satellite, yet nothing will ever happen as it's an atomic clock broadcasting GMT/UTC (Greenwich Mean Time/Universal Time Coordinated).

You just argued that satellites don't move data and then you follow your argument with satellite phones and talk about how slow their data connection is?:confused: Then you correct me when I say it's slower than edge and follow that with how ridiculously slow it is compared to edge? :confused: What point are you trying to make?!? And no, you cannot have a good map of the world in just 128MB, a good map of california is about 512mb.

[goosnarrggh]

You just argued that satellites don't move data and then you follow your argument with satellite phones and talk about how slow their data connection is?:confused: Then you correct me when I say it's slower than edge and follow that with how ridiculously slow it is compared to edge? :confused: What point are you trying to make?!?

You had suggested that the GPS satellites themselves could be used for two-way data communication. That is blatantly false. Certainly, other satellites may be used to send data back and forth, but this is not the case with the Navstar (GPS) satellites.

Any 2-directional data exchanges that may happen with Navstar satellites are under the exclusive domain of the DoD, and are most likely limited to commands to perform orbital adjustments, correct atomic clock discrepancies, etc.

Such exchanges would almost certainly require a much higher power transmitter than you'd get from any handheld equipment anyway. Remember, the Navstar satellites are at an orbit of 20,230 km, and they use rather high power transmitters to reach receivers on the ground.

The Iridium satellite telephone service uses a constellation of satellites at a much lower orbit of 780 km, thus they'd require handsets with significantly less transmission power.

And no, you cannot have a good map of the world in just 128MB, a good map of california is about 512mb.
There ya go. If you're traveling to California, there's no need to download detailed maps of Timbuktu. Still no obligation to have gigs and gigs of maps if you don't want to.

[MaxPower49]

FWIW... I have TomTom on my treo cellphone. I have the entire US & Canada map pack on it which takes up about 1gb.

[Tosser]

You just argued that satellites don't move data and then you follow your argument with satellite phones and talk about how slow their data connection is?:confused:
Sigh! Frankly, you have reached the point where you're merely ridiculing yourself.

No, I didn't argue that "satellites" don't move data. I argued that "GPS satellites" don't move data. Sheesh! At least try get the basics.

I mentioned satellites used for satellite TELEPHONES, because your notion that GPS satellites would be "even slower than edge" is laughable, when satellites dedicated to actual communication is way, way, slower than simple GSM (as in the terrestial cell network) in order to show you how far fetched the notion that you could use something like your GPS receiver to "move data". It was a comparison, it's not that hard to get. But I guess that since you think that a GPS satellite is the same as a communication satellite and vice versa, it really isn't surprising to anyone.






Then you correct me when I say it's slower than edge and follow that with how ridiculously slow it is compared to edge? :confused:
You don't have to use the confused-emoticon, it's obvious you were confused from before you mouthed off about how wrong I was.
To explain:
You were using edge as an example of a really slow network, in order to rheotrically make-belief you knew what you were talking about.
I was comparing to edge in my rebuttal to show you that when it comes to satellite communication, speeds akin or even just close to edge would be super, super fast.

Then, in order to try to explain that the GPS is merely an atomic clock which broadcast time, and to show that trilateration and multilateration (akin to triangulation on the ground) all takes place in the GPS-receiver I told you it wouldn't be possible to to "move data" with such a receiver/chart plotter/whatever.



What point are you trying to make?!? And no, you cannot have a good map of the world in just 128MB, a good map of california is about 512mb.
Notice how you say "good map". How good do you want it?
In any case, there's no reason you couldn't download just the maps you need and with the resolution and details you want.

Here's a 115MB GPS receiver with turn-by-turn directions. 115MB. You can get it with a map of the whole of Europe, or, say, the whole of North America.

http://www.amazon.com/Garmin-Quest-115-Megabyte-Handheld-010-00306-00/dp/B0002JUH3O

You really should reread my posts, and most certainly Goosnarrggh's. Perhaps you won't be so determined to stay in the dark when reading his posts.

[i0Nic]

In my opinion, the new touch is A LOT better than the old one, and worth the upgrade.

In my opinion, there should be two 'mobile touch' devices that are exactly the same, except one is slightly thicker to accomodate 3G/GSM radio and a bit bigger battery. I think this is an idea they have probably thought of, but the cost of the iPhone without the phone would be too high unsubsidised.

[hogfaninga]

In my opinion, the new touch is A LOT better than the old one, and worth the upgrade.

That has to be one of the dumbest comments I have ever heard on this site. Better? A little. A LOT? Pure stupidity.

[NightFlight]

That has to be one of the dumbest comments I have ever heard on this site. Better? A little. A LOT? Pure stupidity.

Really nice response...

I am sure that new members browsing the forum who read this will really want to stay...

[i0Nic]

That has to be one of the dumbest comments I have ever heard on this site. Better? A little. A LOT? Pure stupidity.
Just the volume rocker is a big deal in my opinion... what about the hugely improved battery life? Then there's also the speaker, the integrated nike+ (which I would love). It's quite an upgrade, and if I was in the market for an iPod touch I would get the new one at retail price even if I was offered the old for a quarter of the price.

Oh and also the new upcoming in-ear headphones that won't work with the old iPod touch will only sweeten the deal.

[hogfaninga]

Really nice response...

I am sure that new members browsing the forum who read this will really want to stay...


He gave his opinion and I did as well. You don't like how I phrased it. Oh well.

i0Nic I agree there are some decent upgrades, but to say it is A LOT better is overstating it. I went to the Apple store and the speaker is well....horrible. Jobs basically said that himself. The volume controls are a needed feature, but way too small. Nike+ won't be used by most. Then to add insult to injury they added new earbuds that cost $79 so you can take advantage of some of these new things.

Overall it is alright, but not great. IMO it would be foolish for someone to sell their gen 1 and buy this one unless they can get a good price on their gen 1 which they probably won't. Now if this is your first ipod touch then it is a good deal.

[clyde2801]

He gave his opinion and I did as well. You don't like how I phrased it. Oh well.

i0Nic I agree there are some decent upgrades, but to say it is A LOT better is overstating it. I went to the Apple store and the speaker is well....horrible. Jobs basically said that himself. The volume controls are a needed feature, but way too small. Nike+ won't be used by most. Then to add insult to injury they added new earbuds that cost $79 so you can take advantage of some of these new things.

Overall it is alright, but not great. IMO it would be foolish for someone to sell their gen 1 and buy this one unless they can get a good price on their gen 1 which they probably won't. Now if this is your first ipod touch then it is a good deal.

Couldn't agree with you more, after having played with the new ones just now at the apple store. The screen was yellow compared to my 1st gen as well.