iPod Touch (a Touch OS X device)

[goosnarrggh]

A $100 refund was announced today, so much for no refunds, just facts please

Ok, to be pedantic, here's a FACT: It's not a refund, it's a store credit.

The only people getting a true refund (ie. cash in hand equal to the dollar amount by which the iPhone's price was reduced) are people who bought it less than 14 days previously (and are thus protected by the company store's price policy), or people who have price protection guarantees through their credit cards.

 

[jacktiernan]

I am interested in a new Itouch but I'm concerned on the itouch internet using safari, in that I am a current macbook user wuth internet connection as of present day and time, I have charter highspeed internet wifi, question is this when you buy the new iTouch in that you have to sign up for internet service again or you can connect to your existing internet provider? Someone please let me know. thanx, robert

I'm pretty sure that if you currently connect to the net through a wireless router, then when you get your ipod touch you can easily set it up to connect to the internet through that.

sry, i don;t know what "charter" wifi is, hope my answer made some sense!

 

[PodHead]

If they could, everybody would be using their products.

I'm with ya. I love reading post that say "If *insert apple product here* would do *insert task specific to that person only* I would totally buy it." While mail could be beneficial for a lot of people, it's an iPod for christ sake. As long as it plays MUSIC that should warrant a purchase. Everything else is a bonus.

 

[emotion]

I'm with ya. I love reading post that say "If *insert apple product here* would do *insert task specific to that person only* I would totally buy it." While mail could be beneficial for a lot of people, it's an iPod for christ sake. As long as it plays MUSIC that should warrant a purchase. Everything else is a bonus.

Not really. That's what the ipod classic and nano are for. This is another class of device.

 

[cmcconkey]

I'm with ya. I love reading post that say "If *insert apple product here* would do *insert task specific to that person only* I would totally buy it." While mail could be beneficial for a lot of people, it's an iPod for christ sake. As long as it plays MUSIC that should warrant a purchase. Everything else is a bonus.

This device is going to end up being the equivalent of a "PDA" or else Apple is going to miss a big wad of cash. A lot of people are getting tired of the big PDAs that do the same things and look the same as they did when they came out many years ago. You have PDAs that run Windows Mobile, or what ever it is called, that you have to restart up to 2 times a day just so that you can input a new contact. You have a PALM device that is running the same clunky web browser that it has had for years, and not to mention that their OS is VERY bland. These are just my observations in what I have dealt with personally and in helping friends & coworkers.

Christopher

 

[bdj21ya]

I love the existing 3rd party apps. They've really added some fun new functionality for my iPhone. What will be truly awesome is when they get some documentation out to make the process easier. Right now it takes a bit too much hacking for me to figure out how to write my own apps.

 

[clintanson]

No-one is talking about Wi-Fi being used for Wireless Headphones......can this be done???.........Bluetooth???

 

[i0Nic]

Since the touch and the iphone are the same price now, Apple should've included at least the whole feature set of apps that's on the iPhone. Even including the camera and bluetooth should've been an option. Since they are going this route, may as well go the whole hog. Afterall, the phone is the actual differentiating factor between the devices.

 

[happydude]

hmmmm

doesn't quite seem worth it to me. still saving up for iphone once current and very crappy tmobile service contract is out in feb. by then we should be seeing 16GB iphone . . . sweet.

 

[Evangelion]

No-one is talking about Wi-Fi being used for Wireless Headphones......can this be done???.........Bluetooth???

Wifi-headphones make absolutely no sense. Bluetooth-headphones would make sense.

 

[SteveG4Cube]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but on the bottom of the iPhone and iPod touch, there's a white square with rounded edges. Isn't that the camera?

 

[MonkeyClaw]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but on the bottom of the iPhone and iPod touch, there's a white square with rounded edges. Isn't that the camera?

For the longest time I swore it was (like before the iPhone was released). But alas its just a symbol for the iPhone and iPodTouch's home button. But damn it looks like an iSight, haha.

 

[Chundles]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but on the bottom of the iPhone and iPod touch, there's a white square with rounded edges. Isn't that the camera?

Erm, no that's the Home button. The camera on the iPhone is on the back of the unit.

 

[SteveG4Cube]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. Guess I need some hands on time with an iPhone.

 

[peharri]

Undecided

It's what's missing that bothers me.

I'd have liked to see Bluetooth in the device. Bluetooth has a number of advantages, not just in the increasingly popular wireless headphones sense but also that hackers (in the good sense of the word) would have been able to add functionality like access to the Internet via a paired cellphone that would have been handy and made me see the use in having Internet access on the device. I currently have Opera on my DS, and while there are implementation issues, the major thing that I felt kills it is that you need 802.11 access to use it, so it's not even a browser of last resort. The chances are that if you have 802.11 access, you already have a "real" computer in the area.

(No, an iPhone isn't the answer here. I've thought about it a lot, and I seriously don't want my phone to be an iPhone. I don't want to either be locked to an Apple approved carrier, or else play "dodge the update" games with Apple. I don't want my access to the world to be based upon how much music I've listened to (killing the batteries...) I do want the ease of a real keypad with physical feedback when dialing, I do want voice recognition, I don't give a crap about "Visual voicemail", I do want MMS messaging, etc. I don't want a bar phone as my primary phone. At this stage I absolutely do not want an iPhone, and can only see buying one happening should Apple produce genuinely unlocked versions, so I can use my carrier of choice, and swap SIMs when I want a real phone.)

I'm not so bothered about Google maps, email or the lack of a camera. The capacity, at 16Gb, is fine.

But, right now, I'm still inclined to hope that SD card storage reaches the 10s of Gb soon, so that systems like Nokia's N800 become completely usable as primary music devices. I'm hoping that in the medium term, Apple will relent with Bluetooth anyway, as it's the natural way to implement "just works" interfaces to car audio systems, combined headsets that support cellphones and MP3 players, etc.

 

[dr_lha]

This device is going to end up being the equivalent of a "PDA" or else Apple is going to miss a big wad of cash. A lot of people are getting tired of the big PDAs that do the same things and look the same as they did when they came out many years ago. You have PDAs that run Windows Mobile, or what ever it is called, that you have to restart up to 2 times a day just so that you can input a new contact. You have a PALM device that is running the same clunky web browser that it has had for years, and not to mention that their OS is VERY bland. These are just my observations in what I have dealt with personally and in helping friends & coworkers.

Apple will do well not to call this a PDA, because PDA sales are in the toilet these days. This is certainly not the time to introduce a new line of PDAs. Its the fact that the iPod touch is most akin to a PDA which makes me a bit fuzzy on what the market actually is for it. I mean, if you want small, get a Nano, if you want storage get a classic. I still can't help the feeling that the iPod touch with its moderate storage capabilities and iPhone/PDA like features is a bit of a white elephant in the line up, I can't figure out who its supposed to appeal to.

 

[clintanson]

Wifi-headphones make absolutely no sense. Bluetooth-headphones would make sense.

thx for the reply.........yeah I do get the two mixed up.....I thought my iMac plays AirTunes with AirPort so maybe it's possible to do the same using Wi-Fi on the iPod Touch somehow.......I didn't know that there was no Bluetooth either........a bit dissapointing.........

 

[dr_lha]

The chances are that if you have 802.11 access, you already have a "real" computer in the area.

Depends where you are. Since getting an iPhone I've been surprised where I can pick up free WiFi. For example, several of my local pubs have free WiFi, the Grocery Store has free WiFi and my dentist has free WiFi. I would say that I spend probably about 70-90% of my time within reach of a free or accessible (e.g. work/home) WiFi signal.

 

[peharri]

No-one is talking about Wi-Fi being used for Wireless Headphones......can this be done???.........Bluetooth???

Yes and no.

On a practical level, it can be implemented and could enjoy the benefits of the greater amount of bandwidth 802.11 gives you over Bluetooth. There are a number of issues however:

1. There are no serious, widely used, obvious standardized music protocols for connecting audio applications to headphones over an internet connection. I'm not saying there aren't protocols in existence that do parts of the job, GNU/Linux's esound is one example of a pure "remote speaker" protocol, but that only covers the "Send sound to a device already on the network with an already known IP address" part of the system. It doesn't cover establishing a network connection for the headphones or advertising the audio player service to the audio originator.

Without a standardized way to take headphones out of a box, turn it on, tell your audio player to "Scan for headphones", select the new set, and "pair" them, all devices will be proprietary and refuse to interoperate with one another. In the mean time, I doubt any serious efforts are being made to make this work given Bluetooth already does it.

2. The power consumption of 802.11 is fairly high. Nintendo is able to get away with it on the DS by throttling down the 'b' variant to its slowest supported speed, barely 1Mbps. This speed is too little for uncompressed music, and compressed music requires a substantial amount of processing which makes headphones far more expensive and complex, also adding to the energy requirements of the device.

In practice, Bluetooth solves these problems by already doing it. The downside of BT is that it does have the compression issues, but on the other hand, as the only advantage of 802.11 here would be the improved bandwidth, which can only be achieved at the cost of creating new protocols and sucking batteries, it's a no-win situation.

In the end, I'm hoping Apple will eventually start to support Bluetooth in earnest. One hopes the iPhone will work as a wedge to get that kind of support into their audio devices in general.

 

[clintanson]

Yes and no.

On a practical level, it can be implemented and could enjoy the benefits of the greater amount of bandwidth 802.11 gives you over Bluetooth. There are a number of issues however:

1. There are no serious, widely used, obvious standardized music protocols for connecting audio applications to headphones over an internet connection. I'm not saying there aren't protocols in existence that do parts of the job, GNU/Linux's esound is one example of a pure "remote speaker" protocol, but that only covers the "Send sound to a device already on the network with an already known IP address" part of the system. It doesn't cover establishing a network connection for the headphones or advertising the audio player service to the audio originator.

Without a standardized way to take headphones out of a box, turn it on, tell your audio player to "Scan for headphones", select the new set, and "pair" them, all devices will be proprietary and refuse to interoperate with one another. In the mean time, I doubt any serious efforts are being made to make this work given Bluetooth already does it.

2. The power consumption of 802.11 is fairly high. Nintendo is able to get away with it on the DS by throttling down the 'b' variant to its slowest supported speed, barely 1Mbps. This speed is too little for uncompressed music, and compressed music requires a substantial amount of processing which makes headphones far more expensive and complex, also adding to the energy requirements of the device.

In practice, Bluetooth solves these problems by already doing it. The downside of BT is that it does have the compression issues, but on the other hand, as the only advantage of 802.11 here would be the improved bandwidth, which can only be achieved at the cost of creating new protocols and sucking batteries, it's a no-win situation.

In the end, I'm hoping Apple will eventually start to support Bluetooth in earnest. One hopes the iPhone will work as a wedge to get that kind of support into their audio devices in general.

oh ok

wow that was an eye-opener!

so u don't think there will be an Apple solution for Wireless Headphones anytime soon then?

 

[peharri]

Depends where you are. Since getting an iPhone I've been surprised where I can pick up free WiFi. For example, several of my local pubs have free WiFi, the Grocery Store has free WiFi and my dentist has free WiFi. I would say that I spend probably about 70-90% of my time within reach of a free or accessible (e.g. work/home) WiFi signal.

What I'm trying to convey is a little more complex. The chances are if you know that Wifi will be at a place where you're expecting to take an internet access device, you almost always know you'll be able to use a computer there.

If I go to the store, I know that it might be the case that at some stops along the way, including the store itself, there may be a Wifi access point, but I can't predict where. If I go to Orlando, I know that there may be Wifi access points on the way (at unpredictable locations), but the only place I know there's Wifi will be the hotel. And guess what - I can unpack my suitcase and use my laptop at the hotel.

Am I going to bother taking my Nintendo DS or iPod Touch to the store expecting to use it to connect to the Internet? Answer - hell no, the chances of it being useful anywhere where I might need it are low, so I'll make alternative arrangements and will not bother with lugging the thing around. Am I going to take it to Orlando? Again, no, my laptop will work in the only place where I can be sure Wifi exists, and lugging the "pocket browser" around makes no sense anywhere else.

Unless the Internet access can be reasonable assumed to be reliable and everywhere (occasional "walk a little" hole excepted), the usability of an Internet access device is limited, and becomes more of a nice to have than something that makes carrying that device compelling. If I can't rely upon the device, there's no compelling reason for me to have it.

That's what I meant by "The chances are that if you have 802.11 access, you already have a "real" computer in the area." Ok, 802.11 access exists in places you don't expect it, but that aspect to 802.11 is a problem, it's what prevents the system from "just working".

 

[pubius]

The fact that this is another class of device is late breaking news. What we have been waiting for since the widescreen ipod video rumors began (think years and years ago) is just that, a widescreen video IPOD. We hadn't been waiting for a jack of all trades, master of nothing PDA. Want a PDA? Buy an iphone.

p.s. - again, not directed at those of you who don't live in the USA, this argument is obviously not for you.

Not really. That's what the ipod classic and nano are for. This is another class of device.

 

[cmcconkey]

Apple will do well not to call this a PDA, because PDA sales are in the toilet these days. This is certainly not the time to introduce a new line of PDAs. Its the fact that the iPod touch is most akin to a PDA which makes me a bit fuzzy on what the market actually is for it. I mean, if you want small, get a Nano, if you want storage get a classic. I still can't help the feeling that the iPod touch with its moderate storage capabilities and iPhone/PDA like features is a bit of a white elephant in the line up, I can't figure out who its supposed to appeal to.

Oh trust me I know very well that PDA sales are in the toilet. All the PDAs that are out there now are pretty much the same, feature wise, as they were years ago. I hope that Apple doesn't market it as a PDA and I hope that it is never classed as a PDA because it will become a white elephant. This should be the next generation of a mobile device. They don't need to just keep making the mp3 player because there is only so far that you can go with it and it will fall into the same boat as the PDAs have because there has been nothing "New and Revolutionary" added to its product image.


Christopher

 

[cmcconkey]

The fact that this is another class of device is late breaking news. What we have been waiting for since the widescreen ipod video rumors began (think years and years ago) is just that, a widescreen video IPOD. We hadn't been waiting for a jack of all trades, master of nothing PDA. Want a PDA? Buy an iphone.

p.s. - again, not directed at those of you who don't live in the USA, this argument is obviously not for you.

I am really sick if the "if you want <insert feature here> then get an iPhone" people that are going to switch to AT&T for the iPhone are ones that are not in contract and/or are not happy with their current carrier. I am neither of those, I am with Verizon and happy with them. I am VERY sure that I am not the only one that would like some iPhone features but without the phone. This is where the need for a product that will fill this void. If Apple doesn't fill it with the iPod Touch then someone else will and Apple will be playing catch up, and we all don't want to see that.

Christopher

 

[Thomas2006]

SDK now.

I think we will see an SDK at the WWDC2008.