Nope, it's their company. Since the touch is the only phone-sized tablet out there, Apple can do pretty much anything it wants without fear from competition - which is non-existent.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod touch How thin is too thin??
- Thread starter peestandingup
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nope, it's their company. Since the touch is the only phone-sized tablet out there, Apple can do pretty much anything it wants without fear from competition - which is non-existent.
Like I said earlier, megapixels/resolution arent that important. Its a quality issue. More megapixels doesn't = better quality.
That doesn't solve the problem of the battery being a THIN and SHORT LASTING source of energy, now does it???
And it also doesn't address the backwards-leaning buttons that are hard to press.
Nor does it speak to the issue of a .7MP camera module. It's LAUGHABLE, it's so pathetic. .7MP> How can you Apple apologists talk about that camera spec with a straight face????
therein lies the main reason I own 11 ipods. They are good products in their class. HAVING SAID THAT, I have ever right to be PEEVED that the touch is a shadow of what it COULD HAVE BEEN, had Jobs not be so OBSESSED with THINNESS. Unnecessary thinness. thinness just for thinness sake.
why thank you!!! (and I DO find my touch easier to hold if it's in any sort of case that provides some additional thickness. I currently have a couple of (came in a 2-pack) silicon cases.) I'm sure it's super-obvious from my comments on the forum regarding the thinness issue, that I would have preferred, at the VERY LEAST, a thicker case to accomodate a longer-lasting battery. roughly five hours of internet connected usage is TOO SHORT. The camera issue is laughable for it's specs, but the battery life is the real pisser for me on this model. A few more millimeters would have made all the difference for housing a higher amperage battery. brick bats to Apple.
It's a pity none of the Android makers jump into this market. HTC Evo 4G+WiFi and HTC Evo WiFi. All HTC has to do is remove the cellular radio from the Evo, and voilà - instant Android touch (and much better too).
I don't KNOW the reasons, but perhaps it's a contractual issue with the carriers that they not cannibalize cell service?? Just a thought.
You mean "than"? Then you're wrong. iPod touch's pics look noisy even on Facebook.
Yup. Focal length. It is an important aspect of camera design and to get more of it you need to add thickness.
I agree that neither of us know the reasons. That's my whole point. But you had just told the forum that they can and just don't want to (which presumes there are no reasons besides stubbornness). I take it you have changed your mind and now agree with me.
So you know that the things you want could have been incorporated into the current iPod without anything else changing? I asked a ton of questions in the thread; if you answered them that would be a good discussion.
I still stand by my statement. It can be done and they don't want to. Why? I have no idea.
I'm not going to go back and see what questions you asked, but FWIW, I don't have any ANSWERS--just opinions, as a consumer. If you don't like my opinions, not to worry, I have plenty more where they came from.
Night, night!
Is everything an opinion these days?
I'm not wrong. I said nothing of quality. Check the resolution of a picture on Facebook. It is less than the resolution of an iPod touch photo (960x720).Is everything an opinion these days?
Facebook posts a max res of 720 x 540 on standard 4:3 images as far as I can tell, so Im too lazy to do the math against iPod's 960 x 720 res. I know its pretty close.
Anyways, FB sucks at photos. They compress the hell outta them, so at the iPod's pixel density, it wont be good.
We may not know all the reasons, but the bottom line is that there are reasons beyond the cost of the components that factor into the specs of a "smartphone-without-the-phone" product line. Cannibalization likely is one of the factors.
=Problems.
I think it is too thin already. Nobody really cares if it's 7mm or 9mm or anything. I'd rather pay less for making it thinner.
i dont like how the sleep button is set back its weird but its not that annoying its just irritating.
Also, when smartphone makers have tried to go it alone in the US without carrier subsidies and support, they frequently get burned (see: Nokia Stores, perhaps Sony Stores at one point too. Apple probably would have failed too had they tried it.). Portable devices minus cell radios just aren't what they do or know and most lack the ecosystems to make it work outside of carrier support. HTC has no desire to be the next Archos (who makes a wide array of cheap, fat, plastic PMPs, which you would think would make them quite popular by reading threads like this).
What percent of smartphone owners do you think buy one because it's the only alternative to an iPod touch? In other words, they only bought it for its multimedia and computer features.
That's because they charge too much for an unsubsidized phone. A device that costs less than $200 to make shouldn't be priced at $600-$700. Sell them for half that amount and they'll be successful. After all, Apple does exactly that with the iPod touch and look how successful that is.
As to Archos, their stuff is mostly junk and not worth the money.
Uhm, the mark-up Apple takes for the iPhone is nothing compared to what the clothing industry takes.
And, one can't exactly say that iPhone is not successful... (despite antenna-gate, iTunes "dictatorship" and the whole anti-Apple rhetoric).
Most iPhones are sold subsidized. I'm talking about unsubsidized iPhones vs unsubsidized iPod touches.