And they are not happy at all. 
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/ipod/review/apple-ipod-touch-8gb-16gb/
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/ipod/review/apple-ipod-touch-8gb-16gb/
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 iLounge review iPod touch
- Thread starter Dias
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
wow, they should not be reviewers
Cons: Feels less like a flagship iPod than an intentionally stripped down iPhone, with diminished cosmetics, interface and features.
Who ever said it was gonna be a downgraded iPhone? NO ONE. IT is a ipod, in the ipod range. IMO it looks better (smaller), interface is like exactly the same and all the features will be on the touch soon enough.
Noticeably downgraded screen exhibits problems such as inverted blacks and dead pixels, which detract from video viewing experience,
So now a manufacturing problem, which will be fixed by the 28th no doubt, means it's downgraded? Please..
while shorter battery life, lower storage capacity, longer transfer times, and less impressive audio quality make it a surprisingly so-so alternative to the less expensive iPod classic.
People buy different ipods for different reasons. Comparing it to a classic is like comparing a modern car to a car made 30 years ago. The older car may perform better, but it lacks everything modern in todays technology. And less impressive audio quality? Compared to what? The Touch and Classic sound identical to me.
Neither Apples best portable video or audio device; also lacks games. Continues iPhones overly expensive battery replacement program, despite using less powerful battery.
Seriously, who wants games? Battery replacement program? I think you should be grateful they will replace (tho I dunno how it works) the battery at all. I can't believe people are complaining about the battery life. It's an ipod, made for music, it can get a good 25 hours of music, nothing wrong with that.
Worst. Review. Ever.
Cons: Feels less like a flagship iPod than an intentionally stripped down iPhone, with diminished cosmetics, interface and features.
Who ever said it was gonna be a downgraded iPhone? NO ONE. IT is a ipod, in the ipod range. IMO it looks better (smaller), interface is like exactly the same and all the features will be on the touch soon enough.
Noticeably downgraded screen exhibits problems such as inverted blacks and dead pixels, which detract from video viewing experience,
So now a manufacturing problem, which will be fixed by the 28th no doubt, means it's downgraded? Please..
while shorter battery life, lower storage capacity, longer transfer times, and less impressive audio quality make it a surprisingly so-so alternative to the less expensive iPod classic.
People buy different ipods for different reasons. Comparing it to a classic is like comparing a modern car to a car made 30 years ago. The older car may perform better, but it lacks everything modern in todays technology. And less impressive audio quality? Compared to what? The Touch and Classic sound identical to me.
Neither Apples best portable video or audio device; also lacks games. Continues iPhones overly expensive battery replacement program, despite using less powerful battery.
Seriously, who wants games? Battery replacement program? I think you should be grateful they will replace (tho I dunno how it works) the battery at all. I can't believe people are complaining about the battery life. It's an ipod, made for music, it can get a good 25 hours of music, nothing wrong with that.
Worst. Review. Ever.
And they are not happy at all.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/ipod/review/apple-ipod-touch-8gb-16gb/
Bah. Just about everything besides the phone functionality and camera can be fixed with hacks which WILL come eventually. The battery life isn't bad at all and increases with brightness adjustment. My screen looks immaculate but some models do have a negative black issue. Just get it switched out and it's no big deal.
Biased review. It's an iPod not an iPhone...
I was also fairly surprised by the review, they seem to be comparing it to the iPhone an awful lot, when really the only similarity is the UI, it would have been reviewed a whole lot differently if the iPhone had never been released....
ShadoW
ShadoW
Wait until Apple (or someone else) gets the true video iPod formula right. We sincerely hope that it will be sooner rather than later.
WTF is up with that? IT IS A TRUE VIDEO IPOD. WTF more do they want? When they fix the screen problems (THAT NOT EVERYONE IS HAVING) then what is still wrong with viewing videos huh?
WTF is up with that? IT IS A TRUE VIDEO IPOD. WTF more do they want? When they fix the screen problems (THAT NOT EVERYONE IS HAVING) then what is still wrong with viewing videos huh?
Hmm, read again: "Feels less like a flagship iPod than an intentionally stripped down iPhone"
Where that "will be fixed by the 28th no doubt" is coming from? Apple hasn't even admitted the problem.
Sorry but even 30 years old cd player will sound identical to professional modern audio system with that crappy headphones that Apple gives you. Try to use something better, like Sennheiser (inexpensive CX300 I've sound much better).
Plz stop with that "I've spend 400 buck so don't speak bad about it" and try to make statements that make sense. Audio chip of Touch is the same of iPhone (which audio is "ok", but it's a cellphone so nobody actually cares).
Hmm, read again: "Feels less like a flagship iPod than an intentionally stripped down iPhone"
Ok, I did re-read that, you are right, but if the iPhone is so great and almighty (as they claim) then whats the deal with calling it stripped down? What do they want, a iPod...with a phone? Oh wow, already invented.
Where that "will be fixed by the 28th no doubt" is coming from? Apple hasn't even admitted the problem.
Read again...NO DOUBT. Do you think Apple don't know about it? Of course they're gonna have them fixed by the big shipment.
Sorry but even 30 years old cd player will sound identical to professional modern audio system with that crappy headphones that Apple gives you. Try to use something better, like Sennheiser (inexpensive CX300 I've sound much better).
Actually, I own the CX300.
Plz stop with that "I've spend 400 buck so don't speak bad about it" and try to make statements that make sense. Audio chip of Touch is the same of iPhone (which audio is "ok", but it's a cellphone so nobody actually cares).
Haha, dude I never said I own the Touch. I've used one for a good 30 mins though. So basically you're saying the audio if the iPhone isn't that great, even though the review speaks god of the iPhone and all it's features.
Please.
Ok, I did re-read that, you are right, but if the iPhone is so great and almighty (as they claim) then whats the deal with calling it stripped down? What do they want, a iPod...with a phone? Oh wow, already invented.
Where that "will be fixed by the 28th no doubt" is coming from? Apple hasn't even admitted the problem.
Read again...NO DOUBT. Do you think Apple don't know about it? Of course they're gonna have them fixed by the big shipment.
Sorry but even 30 years old cd player will sound identical to professional modern audio system with that crappy headphones that Apple gives you. Try to use something better, like Sennheiser (inexpensive CX300 I've sound much better).
Actually, I own the CX300.
Plz stop with that "I've spend 400 buck so don't speak bad about it" and try to make statements that make sense. Audio chip of Touch is the same of iPhone (which audio is "ok", but it's a cellphone so nobody actually cares).
Haha, dude I never said I own the Touch. I've used one for a good 30 mins though. So basically you're saying the audio if the iPhone isn't that great, even though the review speaks god of the iPhone and all it's features.
Please.
Because it's an iPhone minus Phone/Calendar/Notes, they haven't added nothing (like, let me think, lyrics o podcast description). They haven't even stripped it down as they should.
Again, who said that? Fanboys? C'mon...
Sure.
They have never said that iPhone audio quality was comparable to classic iPod.
...
Because it's an iPhone minus Phone/Calendar/Notes, they haven't added nothing (like, let me think, lyrics o podcast description). They haven't even stripped it down as they should.
And you think there won't be hacks for this?
Again, who said that? Fanboys? C'mon...
I'm a fanboy now? Why? Because I know how companies work. From your POV, I bet you think it might get fixed next year or something.
Sure.
LOL. If that's sarcasm, don't believe me then, see if I care that some unknown on the internet doesn't believe I own a set of headphones.
They have never said that iPhone audio quality was comparable to classic iPod.
But yet, according to you, the iPhone and iPod Touch use the same chip, therefore comparing the Touch to the Classic, they compared the iPhone to the Classic also.
And you think there won't be hacks for this?
Again, who said that? Fanboys? C'mon...
I'm a fanboy now? Why? Because I know how companies work. From your POV, I bet you think it might get fixed next year or something.
Sure.
LOL. If that's sarcasm, don't believe me then, see if I care that some unknown on the internet doesn't believe I own a set of headphones.
They have never said that iPhone audio quality was comparable to classic iPod.
But yet, according to you, the iPhone and iPod Touch use the same chip, therefore comparing the Touch to the Classic, they compared the iPhone to the Classic also.
I think they're approaching the device from what they want it to be, not what it is.
If the device works as planned, I'd say it should have a positive review with one new, glaring bad point and that's the lack of storage.
The battery problem is an ongoing issue since the first iPod. Why the rehash over something we knew was happening anyway?
Apple could have made the device twice as thick and given it more storage and a stronger battery, but then, people would still compare it to the iPhone and complain that it was too thick and too heavy.
If the device works as planned, I'd say it should have a positive review with one new, glaring bad point and that's the lack of storage.
The battery problem is an ongoing issue since the first iPod. Why the rehash over something we knew was happening anyway?
Apple could have made the device twice as thick and given it more storage and a stronger battery, but then, people would still compare it to the iPhone and complain that it was too thick and too heavy.
Also, on the subject of memory, not everyone wants a big memory storage. I was originally gonna buy a 2gb (4gb now) Nano, and that would've been fine for me. Now, with the expensive flash storage, 8gb is plently. Sure, bring out some 32gb (or bigger ones) but then people will complain about the price
Quite frankly I'd be more inclined to call the iphone a 'pimped up ipod' rather than the ipod a stripped down iphone. I mean, you look at whats been expected of the iphone and the ipod for the past few years - a touch screen ipod has been expected for a good 3 years now, a touch screen ipod was a complete surprise. They just released them in the wrong order
I don't really find anything wrong with the iLounge review, even if I don't agree with it entirely. I'm not a fanboy or a hater of Apple, I own a 5G Video ipod and the new shuffle. But I definitely have reservations about the ipod touch, and so I've canceled my pre-order for now.
I do feel like Apple made some poor choices with the ipod touch. I don't like that they removed functionality from the device that the iPhone had and the iPod Touch *could* have had, but yet they added little in exchange. I could understand the desire to separate the two devices: the iPhone as a productivity tool and the iPod Touch as a multimedia device, but I don't think they added much to the multimedia aspect of the Touch that the iPhone doesn't already have.
Sure, hackers will fill some of the application gaps. But Apple is getting my money, not the hackers. My feeling on the hacker community is that their efforts shouldn't be on catching the iPod Touch up to the iPhone.
The screen problem does not seem like an isolated handful of incidents and that's certainly a dealbreaker for me until it is fixed. And I'm not going to assume it will be fixed, I want to see it actually fixed before I order one. I'm not giving Apple $400 on promises (and the customers haven't even gotten promises yet on the screen issue).
So, I'm in agreement with iLounge, I guess, in that I'm not recommending an iPod Touch to myself at this point. I'll keep waiting because I'm not that impressed yet.
I do feel like Apple made some poor choices with the ipod touch. I don't like that they removed functionality from the device that the iPhone had and the iPod Touch *could* have had, but yet they added little in exchange. I could understand the desire to separate the two devices: the iPhone as a productivity tool and the iPod Touch as a multimedia device, but I don't think they added much to the multimedia aspect of the Touch that the iPhone doesn't already have.
Sure, hackers will fill some of the application gaps. But Apple is getting my money, not the hackers. My feeling on the hacker community is that their efforts shouldn't be on catching the iPod Touch up to the iPhone.
The screen problem does not seem like an isolated handful of incidents and that's certainly a dealbreaker for me until it is fixed. And I'm not going to assume it will be fixed, I want to see it actually fixed before I order one. I'm not giving Apple $400 on promises (and the customers haven't even gotten promises yet on the screen issue).
So, I'm in agreement with iLounge, I guess, in that I'm not recommending an iPod Touch to myself at this point. I'll keep waiting because I'm not that impressed yet.
I happen to love my Touch, and no that isn't justifying a purchase. I don't have any screen issues (video looks fantastic on mine) and the audio quality is fine as well. I think the main problem with this review is that they are looking at it as a "crippled iPhone" as opposed to what it is, which is a "better iPod."
They also make ridiculous statements like this one: "iPod touch was designed to look less expensive, and succeeds." How in the world can that statement be made? They say right before it that "... it will be a matter of personal preference as to whether you prefer the newer, darker look, or the more luxurious accenting of the iPhone. We think Apple got it right the first time, and knew as much."
It's a matter of personal preference, but they KNOW it was designed to look cheap? Alright...
Then there's this:
Oh...so they're comparing it to the old iPods now, and not the iPhone. (Something that's "never been in an iPod" as opposed to "the same as the iPhone.) It's a better iPod.
But wait, look down 2 paragraphs:
What? Now it's a crippled iPhone again?
There's more but I don't really feel like going thru the rest.
They also make ridiculous statements like this one: "iPod touch was designed to look less expensive, and succeeds." How in the world can that statement be made? They say right before it that "... it will be a matter of personal preference as to whether you prefer the newer, darker look, or the more luxurious accenting of the iPhone. We think Apple got it right the first time, and knew as much."
It's a matter of personal preference, but they KNOW it was designed to look cheap? Alright...
Then there's this:
Oh...so they're comparing it to the old iPods now, and not the iPhone. (Something that's "never been in an iPod" as opposed to "the same as the iPhone.) It's a better iPod.
But wait, look down 2 paragraphs:
What? Now it's a crippled iPhone again?
There's more but I don't really feel like going thru the rest.
Well, they have a few very valid points... there was really no reason for Apple to remove applications like the weather bug, etc, from the Touch and in all fairness, as it is a multimedia iPod they should have left speaker capability on it for people to use when listening to audiobooks or videos so that they don't have to plug in headphones.
Having said that, the iPod is noticeably slimmer than the iPhone, is more 'pocketable' and has double the memory.
Did I mention it has double the memory?
iLounge also failed to even acknowledge that some people don't want cell service with the iPhone or can't get it. All they do is say that if you are in Europe, wow, now you can get an iPhone without the phone. They seem to be 100% convinced that having the device be a phone is a huge part of the experience.
Having said that, the iPod is noticeably slimmer than the iPhone, is more 'pocketable' and has double the memory.
Did I mention it has double the memory?
iLounge also failed to even acknowledge that some people don't want cell service with the iPhone or can't get it. All they do is say that if you are in Europe, wow, now you can get an iPhone without the phone. They seem to be 100% convinced that having the device be a phone is a huge part of the experience.
So they should have included the "coming hacks" in their review? Interesting approach...
Let's face it: They developed the iPhone, then took the OS and software and form factor and, probably, most of the hardware (though not the screen, unfortunately) and stripped features away.
There's nothing wrong with that if you strip down things you need to strip down to make it cheaper, like the phone, BT, camera, volume controls etc.
But intentionally crippling the software to the point where it becomes a teaser product for the iPhone (like giving you Calendar but, oops, no edits) does open them up to criticism.
To me, that feels like Microsoft and their 50 different versions of Vista (OK, that's where the comparison ends, of course).
Indeed, they probably should have released the two products in opposite order - that way people would have been much more awed by the Touch than the way it turned out. If you know what you could have if only Apple had not decided to take it back out of the product, it's much harder to get excited about the Touch.
I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure it even succeeds at being a "better iPod." If it did, then I wouldn't be nearly so critical. But the iLounge review brings up some serious points in comparing it not only to the iPhone, but to other iPods. It has less memory, a longer syncing time, no Disk Mode, and less battery life than other iPods. Sure, it has other new features, but does this make it a "better iPod" or just a "different iPod?" I would think that a better iPod would not be going backwards from other iPods in some respects.
No, but a lot, not most, but a lot of us do. In the eyes of the niche I am part of, the biggest mistake Apple made when releasing the Touch was not including that 160GB hard drive from the classic. So instead of having a device with a beautifully big screen and a great interface AND a boatload of storage, I have to pick between that big beautiful screen and a measly 16GB, OR a noticably smaller screen and massive 160GB storage.
I'm not saying Apple failed miserably with the Touch, but it certainly turned off an admittedly small share of its users to the idea of owning one. I was ALL over it as it was being announced and shown off UNTIL he revealed the capacity. I was ready to drop $500 on the damn thing but....not anymore.
Ironically, I think the touch Gen 1 is gonna end up being the bastard red-headed stepchild of the lineup in the eyes of reviewers and some gadget freaks because:
1) it looks like an iPhone, feels like an iPhone, acts like an iPhone, but isn't as good as the iPhone's iPod. Apple just set the bar high with the phone and people were expecting similar battery, screen, whatever performance
2) A lot of us are turned off by the lack of storage.
3) Most of us already have iPhones, so wtf do we need a touch for?
That, and playing with one extensively, for some reason the touch seems like a cheap and plasticky rush job off the iPhone. It just doesn't feel like it has the fit and finish of other iPods.
Just as a refresher, Steve Jobs himself advertised the iPod Touch as an iPhone without the phone at the keynote. With that said, why wouldn't it be reviewed that way???
I think the iLounge review was pretty well-balanced overall. If the screen issue is addressed, I think their grade improves to at least a B. If a future updates adds back some of the IPOD features that are missing (lyrics, notes, etc.), then the review increases to at least a B+.
I think they are using the unit for what it is, and not specifically comparing the iPhone to make their rating. But...comparing to the other iPods and the iPhone is a way of pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the Touch.
I think what is more relevant is not the missing features from the iPhone, but the missing features from the other IPODS. Really basic stuff like song lyrics- why is that feature not in the Touch?
I'm okay with Apple starting with the iPhone, then removing or gimping some of its features. But then you have to ADD whatever is missing that is traditionally present in other iPods. Because if you don't, the Touch really can start to seem more like a gimped iPhone than a proper new iPod. One example of a good thing they did with the Touch was add the double tap to bring up the music controls. I think if they added a few more things along those lines, and the Touch experience improves even further (already quite good for me for the most part, apart from the screen.)
The screen issue alone is a dealbreaker for me (at least the screen issue in my unit), so I'm not surprised by their grade. I think if this issue is resolved properly (I hope it is, but we can make any conclusions until we get some sort of response from Apple), then iLounge will go back and revise their review.
I think they are using the unit for what it is, and not specifically comparing the iPhone to make their rating. But...comparing to the other iPods and the iPhone is a way of pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the Touch.
I think what is more relevant is not the missing features from the iPhone, but the missing features from the other IPODS. Really basic stuff like song lyrics- why is that feature not in the Touch?
I'm okay with Apple starting with the iPhone, then removing or gimping some of its features. But then you have to ADD whatever is missing that is traditionally present in other iPods. Because if you don't, the Touch really can start to seem more like a gimped iPhone than a proper new iPod. One example of a good thing they did with the Touch was add the double tap to bring up the music controls. I think if they added a few more things along those lines, and the Touch experience improves even further (already quite good for me for the most part, apart from the screen.)
The screen issue alone is a dealbreaker for me (at least the screen issue in my unit), so I'm not surprised by their grade. I think if this issue is resolved properly (I hope it is, but we can make any conclusions until we get some sort of response from Apple), then iLounge will go back and revise their review.
And they are not happy at all.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/ipod/review/apple-ipod-touch-8gb-16gb/
iLounge made two errors:
First, as others have noted, it's an iPod, not an iPhone. iLounge should have judged it as such. Does any company care more about branding than Apple? I think not. The iPod brand means media player. Apple added WiFi and Safari primarily to support the WiFi iTunes Store. Apple has not positioned it as a PDA.
Second, as I've noted elsewhere, later model iPhones have the same screen issues. Thus, the iPhone does not have a better screen. It pretty much has the same problematic screen -- and I hope Apple replaces my iPhone. (I hate going to the Genius Bar -- that's why I haven't bothered yet -- maybe this weekend).
Worst. Retort. Ever.
1. read that again.
2. if the screen is poor then it is obviously downgraded as compared to iPhones screen, for Apple to fix this issue in 'future' ipods does not mean that the 'current' screens are not downgraded, if they are any worse than iPhone and are touted as being 'very close to' or 'identical as to' iPhone then this comes under misleading customers and bad business practice.
3. they might same to you, but classic has known audio problems http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/17/new-ipod-classic-has-badly-engineered-audio-circuitry/ and both classic and touch use two different audio chips from two different manufacturers.
4. very valid points made by iLounge here, the battery replacement has always been a pain in my bottom, it can get 25 (?) hours of music to you but for how long? eventually the battery cycles will run out and you'll have pay up. games, not a biggie? if Apple shakes hands with EA and releases games that cost money for the 5.5G then it clearly says 'games on ipods 'work' and to an extent that people will actually pay for them'. so it is a biggie ..
"Better" or "different" is an individual judgement call I suppose. I mean (before the Touch) you had the regular (4G, I believe) iPod and the nano. The nano came after the regular one, but it had a smaller screen and less space...and a month later, also couldn't play video compared to the 5G iPod.
But the nano was a "different" iPod and for some people it was better.
Nonetheless, it's still an extension of the iPod line, and not a bastardized iPhone. It's just that they incorporated Multitouch into it...which had originally been used on the iPhone...but nonetheless isn't an iPhone-only technology. I'm betting we'll see Multitouch in a lot more Apple products down the road.