Apple Splitting iPod Touch Lineup Between Current and New Designs, Increasing Color Options for iPod Shuffle and New Nano?

[jakeOSX]

this made me laugh, free apps from apple store are bloated with banners, they're so annoying, that's to encourage people to buy apps instead.
the ads in kindle are just for the e-readers (when turned off, not while using it), not the fire, afaik.

exactly. FREE apps. would you pay for an app that had ads?

frankly amazon lost me with that. if there are ads, the device should be free, or damn close to it. otherwise, give me the option of the more expensive, ad free version.

/end threadjack

also, Apple, please update the camera on the touch. i promise to keep buying the iphone even if the touch becomes useful.

/slashies!

 

[jeffy.dee-lux]

Only a fool will pay 300 for a Touch when they can get 9 inch tablet for the same price. Keep trying, Apple.

Have you ever noticed how you can fit an iPod in your pocket?

 

[nickgri]

shuffle off to.....

Where is the watch? How many years do we have to wait to get a watch that has phone features-have it unfold to become good size-why is this SO difficult?
Apple designers-engineers-management-WAKE UP!

 

[jagolden]

Guess I'm a fool. I've been waiting to update my iPod Touch 3rd gen for a while. If Apple gives it a better camera, better RAM, and the 4" screen, I'll plop down the $300.

No, you're not a fool. CapnJAckGig must have those big pirate pockets so he can fit a Touch or a tablet in it.

It boggles my mind how people can compare two different products to each other. They can compare specs all they want but they are two different items.

 

[ThisIsMike]

It's Time

I agree with the last post. It's time for a one watch rules them all solution from Apple.

As for pricing, it's pretty clear that it's going to go like this-
entry-level iPod Touch: $200
entry-level iPod Mini: $300
iPad 2: $400
New iPad: $500 (and up)

You won't see a lower cost iPad Mini because it would encroach too much with the iPod Touch. The only way the pricing will change is if they start the iPod Touch at $150, but that's just not going to happen. At least not yet.

 

[JHankwitz]

I do not understand how anyone could use 128GB. It is simply unreasonably large amount of storage space.

So, who's forcing you to purchase a 128? Your inability to comprehend wants or needs other than your own is something you should avoid bragging about.

 

[SgtPepper12]

exactly. FREE apps. would you pay for an app that had ads?

frankly amazon lost me with that. if there are ads, the device should be free, or damn close to it. otherwise, give me the option of the more expensive, ad free version.

I completely agree. For me this is the deal breaker.
If I pay for a product I want to own it. I don't want to work off the rest of the device by watching stupid ads (which are personalized, so they actually buy my personal data too).
I don't need a device like that so desperately that I want to literally sell my soul to get it.

 

[baleensavage]

As an avid iPod touch user, I can say that I would take a touch over a fire any day. I have my iPod with me everywhere I go and it is my personal organizer/assistant, email, web browsing and gaming device. I have no interest in paying a cell phone company exorbitant costs for an iPhone. Wifi works fine for me. Kindle fires and even the rumored iPad mini are not pocket devices or music players. Sure you can use them to play music, but I'd like to see you go jogging with a Kindle fire.

With that said, I'm really hoping Apple does a nice redesign of the iPod touch this time around. First off get a better camera. The one on the current iPod touch is garbage. Secondly, put some nicer little speakers in there for those times when you're not using headphones. And finally it's high time Apple moved on from that awful shiny metal back design. Even a glass 4S design would be better than that scratch attracting design. The touch is the only Apple device to still have that back which was a hangover from the first iPod.

There really is no other device out there like the iPod touch. It's in a class all of it's own and it's time Apple gave it the love it deserves.

 

[Lesser Evets]

- iPod shuffle: ... The current $49 pricing is likely to remain in effect ...

- iPod nano: ... it is actually $149 after last year's price drop.

- iPod touch: ... says that these new $299/$399 iPod models presumed to be the iPod touch will come in "multiple variations" ...

The pricing is nuts. With these newer-bigger-better devices supposedly squeezing down under $500, the iPods are technosaurus wrecks pricing yesterday's market today.

$49 - shuffle (which should be only 2GB for $29 or less)
$149 - Nano (huh? Big jump between items, should be $99)
$299 - iPod Touch-new ... and iPad Lite being $299? $349?

Apple should be neutering the iPod devices to provide a market for entry devices and then i(without)Phone iPods for just below the iPad market. Another year of low-tech Apple products being overpriced while the mid-range products (iDevices) being quite attractive in function and price.

 

[baleensavage]

I completely agree. For me this is the deal breaker.
If I pay for a product I want to own it. I don't want to work off the rest of the device by watching stupid ads (which are personalized, so they actually buy my personal data too).
I don't need a device like that so desperately that I want to literally sell my soul to get it.

You can pay $50 more for a version without ads. They've been doing that with the Kindle for a while now and now it will work with the Fire as well. It's a way to make the device have less sticker shock. They can now say that they have a $150 tablet. $50 off a device to have some unobtrusive ads on the lock screen and on the home screen is a fair deal. If you don't like it (I paid extra for a Kindle without ads), then you can pay $50 more and get no ads.

 

[gguerini]

I already said that before... but we need to understand that the iPod line will eventually disappear, or at least, to become just a mp3 player as it used to be. I don't see any reason for Apple to keep the iPod Touch line.

They should update it with a 4' screen and call it iPad nano. Then they introduce the 7' screen, which would will be called iPad mini and keep the iPad.

3 iPad models: all kinds of price range. They would certainly dominate the low, the mid and the high end market.

In the end, what's the difference between an iPod touch and an iPad, besides the screen size?

 

[baleensavage]

The pricing is nuts. With these newer-bigger-better devices supposedly squeezing down under $500, the iPods are technosaurus wrecks pricing yesterday's market today.

$49 - shuffle (which should be only 2GB for $29 or less)
$149 - Nano (huh? Big jump between items, should be $99)
$299 - iPod Touch-new ... and iPad Lite being $299? $349?

I agree. This would make much more sense.

$49 shuffle
$99 Nano
$150-300 touch
$199-299 iPad Mini
$399-599 iPad

 

[jagolden]

In the end, what's the difference between an iPod touch and an iPad, besides the screen size?

Um, one fits in your pocket, the other doesn't?

 

[Zunjine]

Starting price of an iPhone: $0
Maximum price of an iPhone: $399
Starting price of an iPhone: $499

You can't compare across subsidized and unsubsidized product categories that easily. That's why android phones are doing great but android tablets are getting absolutely smashed.



Something you were guilty of to start.



That doesn't mean the consumer is blind. They'll wonder why a much bigger product with the same or greater functionality costs the same as a smaller product. That may cause them to rethink the value proposition of the iPod touch.

A) you're comparing subsidised prices to unsubsidised prices, not me. I'm pointing out that nobody goes in to buy an offline iPhone and dedides to get an iPad for the same price on the baiss that it's bigger! The point remains that they are two products with similar prices that do not compete with one another despite having some shared functionality. Just like shirts don't compete with jumpers despite both being garments with which one covers one's upper body bits.

B) sorry, what? What do you mean I am guilty of comparing two different product categories? My response comparing the iPad to the iPhone was in order to demonstrate that it's a false comparison you ninny. What are you like, eh?

C) who says the consumer is blind? I'm not only crediting them with the gift of sight but also with being able to tell the difference between a portable media player and a tablet and understanding that the overall size of the product you're buying isn't the key determining factor in its value. If someone needs a portable media player they'll get an iPod. If someone needs a tablet they'll get an iPad. Just like people who want a laptop don't buy an iMac on the basis that it has a larger screen and is cheaper for the same spec! If they want a laptop they buy... a laptop!

But, hey, that's just my tuppence worth. No need to get all handbags about it.

 

[ccrandall77]

They shouldn't mess with the current Nano.

In terms of form factor, absolutely. In terms of functionality, I hope it gets a huge upgrade.

I bought a Lunatik watchband, for my Nano, so I could use it at the gym to listen to music and use the builtin pedometer. It's the most comfortable watch I own (and I have 23 watches). However, I hate having to use a Bluetooth adapter with it and wish it had the capability to act as a smart watch.

I would think that it would now be possible to have BT 4.0 builtin along with a ARM-based SoC that could run a scaled down version of iOS. I would find it very useful to be able to use my Nano to:

1.) Get caller ID
2.) Get SMS/MMS, email, and other notifications
3.) Have an app that would send Weather data to display on the Nano
4.) A remote app for controlling iOS devices (like the Nike+ watch... would be really useful when I'm in the car).

And if Apple were to be able to make the Nano more rugged (or if the makers of the LunaTik watchband made something that would give it more protection, esp from water), it would be even better for the gym.

 

[chrmjenkins]

A) you're comparing subsidised prices to unsubsidised prices, not me. I'm pointing out that nobody goes in to buy an offline iPhone and dedides to get an iPad for the same price on the baiss that it's bigger! The point remains that they are two products with similar prices that do not compete with one another despite having some shared functionality. Just like shirts don't compete with jumpers despite both being garments with which one covers one's upper body bits.

Not sure what you're on about. You made the initial iPhone to iPad comparison.

B) sorry, what? What do you mean I am guilty of comparing two different product categories? My response comparing the iPad to the iPhone was in order to demonstrate that it's a false comparison you ninny. What are you like, eh?

You didn't state as such so I'm guessing that wasn't your original intent.

C) who says the consumer is blind? I'm not only crediting them with the gift of sight but also with being able to tell the difference between a portable media player and a tablet and understanding that the overall size of the product you're buying isn't the key determining factor in its value. If someone needs a portable media player they'll get an iPod. If someone needs a tablet they'll get an iPad. Just like people who want a laptop don't buy an iMac on the basis that it has a larger screen and is cheaper for the same spec! If they want a laptop they buy... a laptop!

But, hey, that's just my tuppence worth. No need to get all handbags about it.

You're assuming I'm implying they can't tell a difference and it will cause confusion. My premise is based on the opposite. They understand the difference, but can't resolve the similarity in pricing understanding the capabilities and value of each.

 

[SCReagan21]

Only a fool will pay 300 for a Touch when they can get 9 inch tablet for the same price. Keep trying, Apple.

What? These are two completely different product categories. People don't buy tablets and iPods for the same purposes. In a similar situation, when someone needs/wants a laptop, they don't suddenly change their mind and buy a desktop because they see that they can get it for the same price. There are different uses/purposes for each.

 

[gguerini]

Um, one fits in your pocket, the other doesn't?

Yeah.. that's the point. It's all about size, not about functionality.

Increase the iPod touch screen to 4 inches (like the yet-to-be-announced iPhone 5) so you can still fit in your pocket and that's called iPad nano. If you want something bigger, that you cannot fit in your pocket, get the iPad mini (7") or the iPad (10"). Does it make sense?

 

[nickgri]

True

In terms of form factor, absolutely. In terms of functionality, I hope it gets a huge upgrade.

I bought a Lunatik watchband, for my Nano, so I could use it at the gym to listen to music and use the builtin pedometer. It's the most comfortable watch I own (and I have 23 watches). However, I hate having to use a Bluetooth adapter with it and wish it had the capability to act as a smart watch.

I would think that it would now be possible to have BT 4.0 builtin along with a ARM-based SoC that could run a scaled down version of iOS. I would find it very useful to be able to use my Nano to:

1.) Get caller ID
2.) Get SMS/MMS, email, and other notifications
3.) Have an app that would send Weather data to display on the Nano
4.) A remote app for controlling iOS devices (like the Nike+ watch... would be really useful when I'm in the car).

And if Apple were to be able to make the Nano more rugged (or if the makers of the LunaTik watchband made something that would give it more protection, esp from water), it would be even better for the gym.

I agree-how can we get APPLE to pay attention to those of us who want the watch? Bluetooth is now up to it-a detachable earpiece could be designed nicely into the watch phone and it could fold out into a big enough device to be used as a phone with apps. A line of shoes that has more connectivity built into the heal? We want a watch APPLE-Dick Tracy style only much better!

 

[Michael CM1]

I do not understand how anyone could use 128GB. It is simply unreasonably large amount of storage space. It is incredibly hard to use 128GB worth of music (assuming one uses them for music and not storing hundreds of apps they don't open), I mean that is just WAY too many songs to choose from, like you would literally never listen to most of them. Generally you listen to certain groups of songs you like, and most of them you never end up playing, like I have so many songs on my 8GB iPod Touch that I literally never play because I just don't feel like listening to them. It's just for those people who want every song they own, no matter how many plays it has on their device (0 being the majority) just because.

VIDEO. APPS. It's been about six years since Apple started selling video. Get in the now.

If you travel somewhere with an iPod touch, you can bring along an Apple TV and use AirPlay or use an HDMI cable to play video. Pop about 10 HD movies on there and then tell me that 128GB is too much.

If you don't want that much, then buy a cheaper model.

 

[damir00]

At $399 it bloody well better come with 256GB of flash, minimum.

 

[Westside guy]

Classical musician here, I take umbrage with that. My library contains 45GB of simply music, not including the books or audiobooks I carry around. Add the fact I have some 60GB of video stored externally and 15GB of photos, and you can see how this stuff adds up quick.

I know some people (like you) have huge music libraries; but you guys are in the minority. However there are other people who have large numbers of photos, and still others that like to keep lots of movies on their tablet or phone. Add in larger app sizes because of retina graphics, and suddenly you've got a lot of people that might want larger capacity devices...

You can't compare across subsidized and unsubsidized product categories that easily. That's why android phones are doing great but android tablets are getting absolutely smashed.

Well... your point is valid, but it's not all-encompassing. There are a LOT of cheap Android phones out there - especially in developing countries. Even in the US you can get unsubsidized Android phones for under $100.

I am too lazy to look it up and find the link, but a few days ago I saw a graphic of what percentage of Android users were on what version of the OS. The graphic was being used to brag about Jelly Bean adoption, which was at 12% or thereabouts... but what really stood out was that the large majority of Android phones are still on 2.x or even 1.x! Those are low end phones - they play in a space Apple doesn't even try to compete in.

 

[kiwiboi87]

will be nice to see siri finally come to ipod touch, which im sure will happen with this update.

 

[cgc]

Damn, my 64GB touch is going to be obsolete.

Why? Will it stop functioning or function more slowly the day it's successor is released?

----------

I do not understand how anyone could use 128GB. It is simply unreasonably large amount of storage space. It is incredibly hard to use 128GB worth of music (assuming one uses them for music and not storing hundreds of apps they don't open), I mean that is just WAY too many songs to choose from, like you would literally never listen to most of them. Generally you listen to certain groups of songs you like, and most of them you never end up playing, like I have so many songs on my 8GB iPod Touch that I literally never play because I just don't feel like listening to them. It's just for those people who want every song they own, no matter how many plays it has on their device (0 being the majority) just because.

...who would ever need more then 640KB of memory... sheesh, don't engineer stuff to today's needs, engineer it so it has a future especially with memory prices nice and low.

 

[damir00]

I do not understand how anyone could use 128GB. It is simply unreasonably large amount of storage space. It is incredibly hard to use 128GB worth of music...

Not at all.

One of my buddies is a (grown up) Dead Head. His collection of live Dead shows alone takes up over 500GB. All completely legal.

Sit down with a hardcore Dylan fan sometime and see how much music they have laying around.

128GB is really not very much at all, especially when using Lossless whenever possible.