Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPod Nano and iPod Touch Dimensions Revealed?

DRM-Free iTunes (with the ability to UN-DRM old purchases would be welcome, but not expected) would be quite nice.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but would an iPod Touch with hybrid flash and hard disk be possible. Flash interface, hard disk storge?

Why GPS or 802.11n on the Touch?

Should be interesting though, can't wait!
 
I can't believe the nano will mimic a Zune

As a long-time apple fan, I can't believe Apple will follow the Zune by adding a tall screen on top of a click wheel. Say it isn't so!!! The pictures and diagrams showing up all over the web seem overwhelmingly consistent. My only sliver of hope now is that all this is misinformation released by Apple so we will be truly surprised come Sept 9th.

I'd much prefer a simplified touch screen on a 2 inch display with no click wheel. Add a flexible top layer with a virtual clickwheel with some physical click behind the LCD and I'll be in hog heaven.
 
.Chris said:
well most the people i know who call it an iTouch are around 13-15 years old... so theres your answer...
Click to expand...

Don't insult the kids.
I just turned 18, so I'm officially not a "kid" anymore... but I know what it's like and you'd be surprised that there are kids out there who know more about this stuff than you do.
 
Just don't

Dejavu said:
Looks entirely credible. Looking forward to the iTouch.
Click to expand...

There is no Apple product called the iTouch because that's a really stupid name. That's like people who call San Francisco - FRISCO. You can't get any lamer.

Just call it the "Touch" if you really can't handle saying two whole words of a product name.


Plus, if you say touch, then you can say things like "you've got the touch? YOU GOT THE POWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERR, YEAH!" :cool:
 
New Touch

For the new iPod touch, definitely no data plan. It's not a phone, it's an iPod that was designed for the people who don't want the phone part, so don't anyone expect any phone technology for 3g or edge or any anything else.

There may be GPS, probably larger capacity but I am hoping for a camera and maybe a microphone.
 
Quillz said:
I agree. People saying iTouch instead of iPod touch is a pet peeve of mine.
Click to expand...

The first time I read a post w/ someone referring to the "touch" as an iTouch, I just assumed they were calling it iTouch for short. (Like I just referred to it as just "touch" for short.) Accepted short names or nick names are given to other technology products that aren't the official names, such as Pizza Box Box Macs, Wind Tunnel g4's. What's wrong with giving the iPod touch a nick name for short? Its not nearly as bad as people pronouncing the X in Mac OS X as "ex" instead of "ten".
 
Itd be nice to have Wireless syncing capabilities with the new nanos and touch, perhaps in a new iTunes?


i mean if the *gag* zune has it....and apple is all about wireless these days, id think its just about time for it?



:p
 
I agree with the other posters who get angry with people who say iTouch.
They sound very unintelligent.
It's iPod touch people, not iTouch; get it through your head.

I'm very glad to see a new design.
Maybe since it's a little thicker they are able to fit in enough chips for a 64GB version.
But one thing I found disappointing is the absence of a camera.
 
Not to mention there appears to be a spelling error under the hard drive of the second choice for some reason. Nor do I trust someone who bookmarks Jackass footage.
 
akira2501 said:
Since it is thicker, it better have a lot more memory as a trade off. Also it may have true gps and some other features since it is bulking up. I personally like the slimmer design, but will take the slightly thicker one as long as it is a major rehaul. 80211.n would be nice as well.
Click to expand...

I am being serious here - but why in the Hell would ANYONE need 802.11N on a small and portable device? The device itself at that point is the limiting factor and not the protocol used for data transmission and reception. I cannot get anywhere near the speed on my iPod Touch that I can on my MacBook ir other Macs in the house, including old G4's. So why the need for N?

D
 
ddTaylor said:
I am being serious here - but why in the Hell would ANYONE need 802.11N on a small and portable device? The device itself at that point is the limiting factor and not the protocol used for data transmission and reception. I cannot get anywhere near the speed on my iPod Touch that I can on my MacBook ir other Macs in the house, including old G4's. So why the need for N?

D
Click to expand...

As has been said earlier, it could use it because it slows an n network down to g speeds for all devices on that network.
 
Hm. Nothing unexpected.

The touch's upgrade is unsurprisingly minor. I think everyone expected the volume controls, as that was one of the most requested features. I'm a bit surprised that Apple added the plastic back, but I guess they didn't want to have to make it thicker than the current generation. The lack of camera is disappointing, but again, was expected. Despite the fact that I've upgraded my iPod each year 2005, I think I will sit this one out. The only thing that was going to sway me to upgrade again, was a camera.
 
FreeState said:
I call fake. Look at the URL its the same as what is live... its not a screen shot from an intranet.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac?mcp=MTE3MDM and that is not an in
Click to expand...


Yeah, I agree, this looks like a fake, at the bottom of the screen shot the picture and description of the product are the same as it currently is on the apple website, but apple usually updates their pics and descriptions when they update the product (Because this isn't just a price cut)
 
hmm

I have a feeling I'll end up buying (in a hurry) the old Black Chubby 8GB Nano...

I think it's a perfect fit for running etc. It's one of the nicest designs... I can't understand why they would actually change that... But then it's Apple and they don't ALWAYS make the right choices...

:(
 
if the headphone out put is clean like the 3g, i am probably going to jump on the 'buy' bandwagon: for shame
 
sadly, inclusion (or not) of the dedicated volume handling alone would make me change my ipod now and put mine up on headfi.org.

i love my touch but that would make the touch just about ultimate. gps im sure will not arrive: i can live without that but it is hard in the mountains with lovely paths all around: i just want speed and sometimes i take a wrong turn to a long way away from home: tough times indeed.

oh yes and : nano is actually iPod nano, not nano. touch is actually iPod touch, not touch. iPod is actually Apple iPod and ibuds do not exist.

whatever is easier to say, say it. who bloody cares?
 
Volume controls...

As if perhaps there is an external speaker so we can play games and not need ear buds? Hope springs eternal.
 
shigzeo said:
whatever is easier to say, say it. who bloody cares?
Click to expand...

I can see where you're coming from.
And it's not like you would say iNano or iClassic or iShuffle; those all sound really stupid.
But I would rather people call it Touch than iTouch; iTouch is actually a rip off version of the iPod touch.
I suppose if were talking about the iPod touch a lot in a post and had to type it more than once it wouldn't be a problem if you used Touch a few times instead.
It's just that iTouch really irritates me and I don't want people cussing me out because of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back