Doesn't it seem odd that Apple would introduce FaceTime on the iPhone and quickly roll it out to the iPod Touch, but NOT integrate it with iChat on Macs? I mean, FaceTime is gonna be mostly useless for iPhone/Touch 4 owners until a lot of their contacts also have a iPhone/Touch 4. But if Apple made it work with iChat, then at least i4 owners could FaceTime chat with all Mac owners. Heck, maybe they should even rebrand iChat as FaceTime, since all Macbooks and iMacs in rcent years already have a built-in video camera and iChat installed, to bring consistency to the OSX/iOS chat options. Next step could be rolling out a Windows version of FaceTime/iChat, putting them squarely up against Skype and Google Chat et al as the best video chat platform. Ok, so that's a bigger step. But the ability to use iChat on a Mac to make/recieve video calls to i-device FaceTime users just seems too obvious; and it would give new FaceTime users a much wider pool of people to use FaceTime with instead of being stuck only being able to use FaceTime with the few friends they might have that also happen to already have a FaceTime device. Why wouldn't Apple make their iPhone video chat client immediately compatible with their Mac video chat client. Right? Or am I missing something?
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 Nano and Touch In Stores Tomorrow, Early Reviews
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Doesn't it seem odd that Apple would introduce FaceTime on the iPhone and quickly roll it out to the iPod Touch, but NOT integrate it with iChat on Macs? I mean, FaceTime is gonna be mostly useless for iPhone/Touch 4 owners until a lot of their contacts also have a iPhone/Touch 4. But if Apple made it work with iChat, then at least i4 owners could FaceTime chat with all Mac owners. Heck, maybe they should even rebrand iChat as FaceTime, since all Macbooks and iMacs in rcent years already have a built-in video camera and iChat installed, to bring consistency to the OSX/iOS chat options. Next step could be rolling out a Windows version of FaceTime/iChat, putting them squarely up against Skype and Google Chat et al as the best video chat platform. Ok, so that's a bigger step. But the ability to use iChat on a Mac to make/recieve video calls to i-device FaceTime users just seems too obvious; and it would give new FaceTime users a much wider pool of people to use FaceTime with instead of being stuck only being able to use FaceTime with the few friends they might have that also happen to already have a FaceTime device. Why wouldn't Apple make their iPhone video chat client immediately compatible with their Mac video chat client. Right? Or am I missing something?
Simply not true.
The iPod touch continues strong sales in international markets where iPhone carrier exclusivity has ended.
Please open your mind and realize that the world includes countries other than the United States of America.
Thank you.
Now, if only iPod Nano supports bluetooth, and pairs this with any headphone bluetooth ,this would be a sweet device !
After hearing about the 0.7 Mpixel camera and non-IPS screen, I'm on the fence with the iPod Touch. If it has 512MB RAM I'll buy, otherwise I'd rather upgrade my 3GS...
The only problem I have with the new Nano 6G is the price. $99 for the 8GB and $129 for the 16GB would have been more reasonable. As for the new Touch, they should have used a slightly larger casing so they could use the better iPhone 4 camera. Some people may say having any camera is better than no camera, but in 2010, 0.7MP just doesn't cut it. However, even with the inferior camera, the new Touch is hard to beat, except if you own a iPhone 4.
Same marketing as last year with slightly different wording. Also, Apple doesn't care how how they get their money, just as long as they get it.
2009
2010
But it really just has more to do with the fact that many people will still prefer the iPT over the iPhone because they cannot afford to or do not want to pay overinflated monthly data charges, and not his "closed mindset" as you put it...
I like the new Nano. The previous Nanos had a cheap clickwheel that was really thin compared to the Mini or the Classic, making it annoying to scroll. Everything was in menus, I always found it confusing and the interface was really boring. It was awesome compared to other players, but now with the iPhone and iPod Touch, the Nano was actually complicated to use, and the clickwheel made navigation very linear.
I think the touchscreen is awesome, but I think the design is a bit strange: the design resembles the new Shuffle, with rounded metal, but the screen resembles the iPhone with the shiny black bezel, and the two don't really look symmetrical and good together. I'm sure there was no other way to make it smaller, but I think they will figure it out one day, and it will probably look like a tiny, square iPod Touch with a curved back and entirely symmetrical edges.
I think the touchscreen is awesome, but I think the design is a bit strange: the design resembles the new Shuffle, with rounded metal, but the screen resembles the iPhone with the shiny black bezel, and the two don't really look symmetrical and good together. I'm sure there was no other way to make it smaller, but I think they will figure it out one day, and it will probably look like a tiny, square iPod Touch with a curved back and entirely symmetrical edges.
I prefer iPod touch because i don't need a smartphone with a 2 days battery (if lucky).
Here's the thing: after reading through that iPod Touch review, I recognize that it does everything faster and better than my 2nd gen Touch, but what does it actually add?
Multitasking...yes I want that. But I've gone 2 years without it, so I don't know what I'm missing.
Facetime...sounds interesting, but I'm not really sure I'd use it. I'd have to be in a wifi zone, which is probably home for me, where I'd rather just use iChat. Without being able to use it anywhere it feels gimmicky.
Videos and Pictures...well, the pictures suck, so that's out. HD videos are nice, but honestly not a great necessity considering my cell phone can get near that resolution.
Integrated Microphone....I really want this. But I've had a $12 mic to plug into the headphone jack for over a year, and it works great.
I guess these things are all relevant additions to the iPod Touch, and I'm sure they'll sell them in boatloads, but for me it's just not the additions that would get me to upgrade. If they had gone for things like GPS, a better external speaker, or maybe (I know I'm dreaming) an iPad-style data plan I'd be all over it. But I just can't see myself throwing down the money to get a device that basically functions exactly like my current 2nd gen, albeit a little more quickly and smoothly. The extra features just don't grab me at all.
Here's hoping that January Verizon iPhone comes true
Yes I'm sure that if you already have a 2nd gen, you don't have to get the new one. It's expensive stuff and you already have most of it. But technology can't stop evolving, and I'm sure the new iPod Touch will get many people to buy it, even if they wouldn't have bought the 2nd gen.
I thought that too, but it's just Apple thinking about MONEY.
Facetime being only on iPhone4 and Touch4 is an extra push to buy those devices (at least for now). I do know for some that's been a lever to get 2 iphone4s instead of just one...
At some point they will add it to the desktop, next year.
I'm still bemused by the hype over facetime, as I had video calling on an old nokia ten years ago, why should it take off now?
[edit] then again, tablet have been around more than 10 years too
The kids will make it popular, 10 years ago there was no social networking,
such as facebook and the phone calls via the ipod are free.
It's a different time and a different user experience.
So the display on the Touch isn't quite as nice as the iPhone's huh?
Like I said on launch day; The new iPod Touch comes with a Retina display panel, yes, but unfortunately it's not the same as the iPhone 4. It's not an IPS panel. It is simply too expensive. Would have resulted in higher prices – the iPhone 4 IPS panel comes with a $80 price tag.
Resulting in a far less great viewing angle:
Which is still acceptable, but the colors are also less brilliant. Black simply isn't as black on say the iPhone 4.
All in all it is a Retina display and that is a step forward, but might be food for lawsuits – the use of "Retina" might be seen [by some] as a misleading marketing ploy.
Note: Additional info about the iPod Touch battery.
So the display on the Touch isn't quite as nice as the iPhone's huh?
and the camera is junk, something you would find at the corner drugstore.
iPod Nano 2010 = iPod Shuffle + screen. All this for the same price as what you paid for the previous and better iPod Nano.
Confused...How does the iPhone 4 get the IPS panel (with that $80 price tag) and only cost $199-$299, yet iPod Touch models are $229-$399 and still can't afford to put it in? I'm assuming there are components in the iPT that are still more expensive than the iP4?
Because the iPhone is an $800 device. AT&T subsidizes the price up front and takes $1600 over the life of the required two year contract.
The prices you mention here also come with a 2 year AT&T contract. Without that contract, the iPhone 4 is much more expensive. Following are the prices taken from a international stores, for phones without a contract:Confused...How does the iPhone 4 get the IPS panel (with that $80 price tag) and only cost $199-$299, yet iPod Touch models are $229-$399 and still can't afford to put it in? I'm assuming there are components in the iPT that are still more expensive than the iP4?
EU: € 539,00, € 659,00 and € 779,00 respectively.
Australia: A$ 719.00, A$ 859.00 and A$ 999.00
UK: £419.00, £499 and £599
Conversion table:
$1 = 0.79 Euro
$1 = 1.10 AUD
$1 = 0.65 GBP
Edit: Ah. I see that emptyCup beat me to it (while I was looking up prices for you).
Confused...How does the iPhone 4 get the IPS panel (with that $80 price tag) and only cost $199-$299, yet iPod Touch models are $229-$399 and still can't afford to put it in? I'm assuming there are components in the iPT that are still more expensive than the iP4?
How is it possible that there are still people on Macrumors who still don't understand the concept of subsidized prices for phones?
Confused...How does the iPhone 4 get the IPS panel (with that $80 price tag) and only cost $199-$299, yet iPod Touch models are $229-$399 and still can't afford to put it in? I'm assuming there are components in the iPT that are still more expensive than the iP4?
iPod touch prices:
8GB = $289
32GB = $378
64GB = $499
iPhone prices:
8GB 3GS = $719
16GB iPhone 4 = $859
32GB iPhone 4 = $999
All in Australian dollars but it's about the same ratio all over the world where the phone is available unlocked from Apple.
The iPhone DOESN'T COST $199 or $299. It's subsidised by your carrier to varying amounts when you sign onto a contract. Here in Australia there are many iPhone plans where the entire cost is subsidised so you pay nothing at all up front. Doesn't mean the phone is free.
The iPod touch is much, much cheaper than the iPhone 4.
EDIT: Ah, seems like we're playing a game of snap here. What those guys up there said.
It must have been said already...
But I'll say it anyways because its just so brutally obvious.
This new "nano" should really be sold for $100 as a new iPod shuffle, with 6 gb storage. This is a standard size for small devices like this, as they are not for serious collections of music but shuffling new songs, downloaded from iTunes ... The screen serves little functional purpose as it isn't even large enough for a decent calendar or calculator, but is perfect for displaying album art and song information: something people have been asking for in a shuffle for years. $100 or even $79 is not too much of a premium to pay to give someone an
The old nano was the perfect size, if not too small already (seriously). I would have bought one if they had included a 720p camera in it (despite already owning a tiny camera) because of just how small it is. They could have also upgraded some of the feel of materials. Now all of the accessories designed for that generation are once again useless for the next.
The iPod touch always seemed to me like a gimped cheapo iPhone and I see no rationalization behind it's existence since all of the people who buy them would surely buy a cheaper iPhone, and the supply and demand of this situation is obvious: if the iPod touch funds were devoted to iPhone we would have the cheaper iPhone. I'm not going to argue that they need to make some kind of new smaller touch screen device because the size of the screen is perfect.
One step further there is the iPad which is also, imho, almost the perfect dimension for it's purposes. I do not understand why there would be any push towards making a smaller screened iPad, when they have clearly got everything formatted perfectly to a 9.8" screen. Lighter materials could make it the perfect portable device.
But I'll say it anyways because its just so brutally obvious.
This new "nano" should really be sold for $100 as a new iPod shuffle, with 6 gb storage. This is a standard size for small devices like this, as they are not for serious collections of music but shuffling new songs, downloaded from iTunes ... The screen serves little functional purpose as it isn't even large enough for a decent calendar or calculator, but is perfect for displaying album art and song information: something people have been asking for in a shuffle for years. $100 or even $79 is not too much of a premium to pay to give someone an
The old nano was the perfect size, if not too small already (seriously). I would have bought one if they had included a 720p camera in it (despite already owning a tiny camera) because of just how small it is. They could have also upgraded some of the feel of materials. Now all of the accessories designed for that generation are once again useless for the next.
The iPod touch always seemed to me like a gimped cheapo iPhone and I see no rationalization behind it's existence since all of the people who buy them would surely buy a cheaper iPhone, and the supply and demand of this situation is obvious: if the iPod touch funds were devoted to iPhone we would have the cheaper iPhone. I'm not going to argue that they need to make some kind of new smaller touch screen device because the size of the screen is perfect.
One step further there is the iPad which is also, imho, almost the perfect dimension for it's purposes. I do not understand why there would be any push towards making a smaller screened iPad, when they have clearly got everything formatted perfectly to a 9.8" screen. Lighter materials could make it the perfect portable device.