iPod Touch (a Touch OS X device)

[madmaxmedia]

While you obviously can't access wifi everywhere you go (at least most of the population can't), I generally have my iPod with my the majority of the time anyway. The one thing Apple did with the Touch vs. the competing Archos and others' devices, is that it is very small and pocketable. The others you might need to carry with you or keep in a case, instead of going in your pocket. The iPod Touch is incredibly sleek and thin (considering it's screen size, OS, etc.)

'Lugging' is a bit of an overstatement, don't you think?

Besides, it's just a bonus feature to its main purpose- play music and movies.

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.

 

[shoelessone]

Another great thing for me: I am backpacking around europe next summer and last time I did this I used internet cafes all the time (booking hostels, etc, etc). Now, with my iPod touch I should be able to save money by avoiding internet cafes. Plus I'll be able to update my travel blog more regularly. It would be INCREDIBLE if there was a way to get my photos from my camera to my iPod touch so I could somehow post those as well, but oh well. Perhaps in a years time there will be something like that.

 

[wizard]

I'm sure that Apple is strategically choosing what to put on the iPod touch. They've got to give people some incentive to step up to the iPhone, and if there are key features which only the iPhone has, they'll go for it.

Errr....

The incentive to step up to the iPhone is the fact that it is an iPhone. That is a CELL PHONE.

As far as Apple and choosing software to put on this device, I would not be surprised if that is still up in the air. Once Apple realizes that they have not so much a media player but an hand held computing device they will likely see the need to add much ore in the way of software to the unit. This family of devices could easily hold their own against things like the Nokia N800 with just a bit of tweaking. Give people the ability to create or load apps of their choosing and you will see big demand for these devices.

Now the TOUCH is not a perfect competitor to the N800, there are issues of size and features. The TOUCH would have to grow to support Bluetooth (so far no indication that it does) at the very least for example. The point is between the iPhone and the TOUCH Apple has effectively produced another computing line that has huge potential for future models. Going slightly larger but still keeping the unit pocketable could yield a machine with surprising capabilities.

The future looks bright with the TOUCH.

Dave

 

[madmaxmedia]

Errr....
The incentive to step up to the iPhone is the fact that it is an iPhone. That is a CELL PHONE.

There are so many posts about this, I'm not sure why people aren't arguing about how Apple is going to 'convert' iPod Shuffle sales into Nano sales, Nano sales into Classic sales, etc...

You have a wide range of products at different price points and with different feature sets, to address different significant market segments. This way you can get some revenue from everyone. The point is NOT to try to funnel everyone into buying a Mac Pro or something like that. IF you only need a Mini, you buy a Mac Mini.

As far as Apple and choosing software to put on this device, I would not be surprised if that is still up in the air. Once Apple realizes that they have not so much a media player but an hand held computing device they will likely see the need to add much ore in the way of software to the unit. This family of devices could easily hold their own against things like the Nokia N800 with just a bit of tweaking. Give people the ability to create or load apps of their choosing and you will see big demand for these devices.

I think Apple has been exploring the possibilities since the first inception of the iPod. But for now, it's important that they market it as an iPod, because sales of music players are so much higher than sales of PDA's. But the Touch is a great evolution of the iPod, and allows Apple to gradually build in more functionality. Look at all that empty space on the home screen!

 

[cmcconkey]

There are so many posts about this, I'm not sure why people aren't arguing about how Apple is going to 'convert' iPod Shuffle sales into Nano sales, Nano sales into Classic sales, etc...

You have a wide range of products at different price points and with different feature sets, to address different significant market segments. This way you can get some revenue from everyone. The point is NOT to try to funnel everyone into buying a Mac Pro or something like that. IF you only need a Mini, you buy a Mac Mini.



I think Apple has been exploring the possibilities since the first inception of the iPod. But for now, it's important that they market it as an iPod, because sales of music players are so much higher than sales of PDA's. But the Touch is a great evolution of the iPod, and allows Apple to gradually build in more functionality. Look at all that empty space on the home screen!

Those points are the ones that I have been trying to get across ever since the rumor of the Touch iPod first came up. You have to make different models to allow the consumer to choose what they want or their money.


Christopher

 

[wizard]

Who else thinks that the iPod touch and the iPhone are exactly the same hardware with only a firmware change to disable features? I think its very likely. Its probably cheaper for apple to produce only one version of the hardware rather than redesign the thing. I know video card companies do this all the time. If this is so it leads to the possibility of unlocking the phone capabilities with some software/hardware modifications.

Exactly no! That would be far to expensive. Very close to the same hardware is another thing altogether. I would suspect that all of he Cell Phone hardware is missing from the touch. The reasoning is simple it wouldn't be needed for the touch, would add costs and drain power from the unit.

Personally the thing I would like to know is if BlueTooth is supported. That would vastly expand the capabilities of the unit. Again I suspect not. I see this unit as an introductory unit that will quickly be supplemented by more advanced units with more capability. At least it should be as there is much potential here. I do hope that Apple realizes what they have here and quickly move to flesh out the product line. The next move ought to be a higher capacity iPhone followed quickly by a slightly improved TOUCH that has more ports and memory.

By improved I mean slightly larger in size to support a larger screen. The unit still needs to be pocketable but I think there is some room to grow here. The larger screen just makes it easier to run a variety of applications. It should have more RAM to allow better multitasking and hopefully to allow better browser support. More Flash wouldn't hurt either and the larger size should help there. I suspect though that larger Flash sizes are coming just as soon as they can get the chips. Finally more ports wouldn't hurt either. If Bluetooth isn't in the TOUCH then it needs to be in its sister model. It would also be nice to see a normal USB port also, this to allow sporadic hooking up to printers and such when networking isn't available. All of this should be doable in a slightly larger device. All we are talking about is like a half inch bigger iPhone.

Dave

 

[madmaxmedia]

All of this should be doable in a slightly larger device. All we are talking about is like a half inch bigger iPhone.

Dave

I like your ideas, but not at the expense of a bigger unit. I think Apple will continue to add features, as they are feasible in approximately the current size.

There's a significant cut-off in portability when you go from small enough to easily fit in your pocket, to being just outside of that. There's wiggle room in that definition, but Apple won't clearly step beyond it (not that you were promoting a huge increase or anything, I'm just saying in general.)

I think Apple will add BT, more memory, etc. by next year in exactly the same case size (unless there is a HD model which will of course be thicker.) They can even get a bigger screen in, since there is room in the front.

 

[wizard]

There are so many posts about this, I'm not sure why people aren't arguing about how Apple is going to 'convert' iPod Shuffle sales into Nano sales, Nano sales into Classic sales, etc...

Exactly! Just as I'm certain that Apple will come out with a smaller, lower cost iPhone of some type in the future.

You have a wide range of products at different price points and with different feature sets, to address different significant market segments. This way you can get some revenue from everyone.

Yep. What people seem to forget already is that Apple is fresh into the cell market. They can not stay in that market with just one device. It is not just an issue of revenue either, if you want to be a significant player you have to have a reasonable percentage of the market, that just doesn't happen with one device.

In other words Apple has no choice but to add to its phone and pod line ups and do a bit of cross over. If not they will eventually loose market share.

The point is NOT to try to funnel everyone into buying a Mac Pro or something like that. IF you only need a Mini, you buy a Mac Mini.



I think Apple has been exploring the possibilities since the first inception of the iPod. But for now, it's important that they market it as an iPod, because sales of music players are so much higher than sales of PDA's.

Well considering the tanking of PDA sales one would not want to be associated with that business. Much of the bloodshed in the PDA business is due to things like the iPhone and similar devices from other companies. So I agree the association with the iPod line is a good thing, but quickly expanding capabilities beyond the simple media player is also important.

In the end I don't think most people want to carry a lot of different devices around with them. That is why continuing to expand the iPhone range is important. It is also why it is important that people are given the ability to configure the units to their specific usage patterns. i.e. be able to load apps as needed.

But the Touch is a great evolution of the iPod, and allows Apple to gradually build in more functionality. Look at all that empty space on the home screen!

The empty space is tempting. I'm really hoping that the product line is already fleshed out and that they are working on the next models to add to the line. It is to bad Apple doesn't have a web site for people to put in feature suggestions.

Dave

 

[yagrax]

Hey, i was just wondering do you think people will be able to AIM and Yahoo instant messenger? I also wish it had blue tooth so we could eventually use cord less head phones.

Hacked iPhone users have been using iChat and/or ApolloIM for instant messaging for a month now. I use iChat, it's AIM for the iPhone. Not sure about Yahoo... iChat runs as a standard iPhone app, and will also run in the background once you've signed in and does the message popup like the normal SMS pops you get, when you get an IM. Anyone who hasn't hacked their iPhone is missing out on at last count 45 apps which aren't getting a lot of press because they're hack apps. Almost all of them are well beyond the "beta" period. I would think almost all of these would run on iPodT. It should be the same OS and CPU hardware under the covers, if not missing mic vibrator and edge network.

One thought, Apple please release Contacts for the iPhone as you show on the iPodT. I hate having to go though Phone to see my contact information - especially when I'm not calling anyone and just need some info.

Also, iPodT 16MB gives us iPhone users hope that a 16MB or bigger iPhone is right around the corner.

You can clearly see the savings Apple will see, they will develop apps for a single OS/CPU platform and be able to release those features to both the iPodT and iPhone at the same time. I bet iPodT is for those people who 1) don't need a cell phone, or 2) are locked in a contract with another carrier at the moment - this makes more sense when you look at the realitively small pricing differences between iPodT and iPhone now. I would expect to see more of the iPod line run or be upgraded to Mac OS X and have the same CPU in later versions.

 

[wizard]

I like your ideas, but not at the expense of a bigger unit. I think Apple will continue to add features, as they are feasible in approximately the current size.

I like my ideas too But really the reason for the slightly larger device is pretty simple I'd prefer bigger pixels. It is an old fart thing. Something that only can be understood when reaching the later stages of life.

On the other hand the larger box makes for more room for battery and other features. Thus we should be able to make use of more RAM and ports. This by the way means an additional model. We wouldn't be getting rid of the current device.

There's a significant cut-off in portability when you go from small enough to easily fit in your pocket, to being just outside of that. There's wiggle room in that definition, but Apple won't clearly step beyond it (not that you were promoting a huge increase or anything, I'm just saying in general.)

Yes I agree entirely, a portable device needs to fit into a pocket easily. I believe there is room for the larger size and keeping it pocketable, the larger screen size would be worth it.

As to Apple stepping outside these boundaries I see that as very possible with a device targeted at a slightly different market. A slate type device could be extremely useful to the average college student and even a lot of professionals. Laptops aren't suitable for everything, mainly again due to size. If Apple can get the input methods optimized I could see a lot of people carrying around a slate type device instead of a laptop.

By the way I don't think the current Touch interface is ready for that. But as a future product it appears ot be a good possibility.

I think Apple will add BT, more memory, etc. by next year in exactly the same case size (unless there is a HD model which will of course be thicker.) They can even get a bigger screen in, since there is room in the front.

The lack of Bluetooth is bothersome as it should have fit into this model no problem. I'm not sure how a higher screen would fit into the device though. The big problem is that even with its limitations this device is very tempting to say the least.

Dave

 

[cmcconkey]

The lack of Bluetooth is bothersome as it should have fit into this model no problem. I'm not sure how a higher screen would fit into the device though. The big problem is that even with its limitations this device is very tempting to say the least.

Dave

I wouldn't be surprised that when the iPod Touch is release it will have a BlueTooth module nestled down inside of it. That would be just like Apple to do, just like with the wireless N that they had in all C2D models but it wasn't fully active. Just a little flip of a firmware switch.

Christopher

 

[yagrax]

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.

You should really look at the iPhone objectively, respectfully a lot of your assumptions may be influenced by the bogus and uninformed mainstream media reports, honestly I was in the same boat as you when I was deciding on an iPhone. With your current carrier, you are most likely locked in for 2 years anyway, same with the iPhone so what's the diff? Having the iPhone play music does not really take up that much battery juice. Even if it did, chances are that you are near a charger nearly all the time - wall plug, car, etc. And to be honest the charging is very fast, much faster than my clumpy ole 30gig video iPod! Keyboard is way better than you think it is. The lack of physical is more than made up with by the way the keyboard software tries to recognize what you're typing by expanding and contracting the touchspots on-the-fly, you really have to use it to understand it's beauty, it's a sorely overlooked technology wonder of the iPhone. Voice recognition seems more like a nice-to-have than a must-have feature. Cool yes, required probably not. I'm sure a hack is working on it right now. MMS can be done via hack apps, hacks are now super simple to do, especially with iBricker and iFuntastic, ignore the mainstream press about the 20 pages of instructions, it's simply not true anymore. New apps come out everyday, most of the people I know don't even know about them. One last thing, try to think of the iPhone/iPodT's as a pocket computer. They run Mac OS X have a very powerful CPU a file system, input and output, etc...software possibilities are endless, bend your mind, it's a freakin mico-mac, man!

Check out...

iBricker - http://cre.ations.net/creation/ibrickr
hack app list http://pxl.ibrickr.com/

 

[wizard]

I'm looking forward to see where this takes us. Very promising indeed.

Best product revision Apple has come out with in a very VERY long time if you ask me. It is no perfect by any means but as product one it is pretty amazing and the price is hard to beat.

I'm a little put off by the lack of a2dp on iphone with bluetooth (for stereo headphone support) but at least there's a chance it can happen. If there's no BT then no chance. Shame, for an iPod that's a major omission.

The apparent lack of Bluetooth is an issue. Hopefully only an issue for product #1. It is not just a2dp but rather all the potential it removes form the device.

Possibly to stop people making it a wi-fi phone.

Possibly or rather also possible is that Apple simple trimmed as much hardware as possible from this unit. The idea of course being to keep the price low.

In any event there is the hope that the lack of Bluetooth doesn't happen. It wouldn't be unknown for Apple to restrict a little info until D-Day.

dave

 

[Surreal]

Everybody saying "it's not a PDA, get over it" should stop and think for a minute.

I have an 80GB 5G iPod. i have 74GB of music. i buy CDs frequently. I am most likely going to buy a 160GB Classic.

My desire for an iPod touch is because i want a PDA. NOT an ipod.

 

[wizard]

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.

Yeah PDA sales are in the tank. In part due to companies like Apple introducing smart cell phones. This unit however is very far from being a PDA. PDA's have never been associated with the ability to deliver multimedia.

The best way to look at this device is as part of the iPhone/iPod family that sits off the iPhone branch. It delivers those capabilities without what can be seen as negatives on the iPhone (the Cell and camera functions). It gives people the choice of buying into the TOUCH world of the iPhone without those limitations.

In any event the key to all of this is OS/X on these devices. They give you the capability of a full blown computer in the palm of your hand. At least OS wise baring the obvious hardware limitations. Apple is not selling PDA's but rather hand held computing platforms that are all part of one family. They are optimized for different task obviously but share a common underlying system. Thus you have the specialized iPod Touch for multimedia and the iPhone for Cell usage. I'm sure we will have future products, fouced on what ever too.

Storage can be an issue there is no doubt about that. Do realize though that for many 4 gig bytes of storage would be plenty. Not everybody plugs up their iPod with music or video. In any event the storage problems will be solved in a short period of time I suspect. It really is a question of technology, there is a lot happening in the world of flash right now. Beyond that I would not be surprised to see a Hard disk variant in the future. Remember this is product one and many people specifically look for flash based devices.

I'm actually impressed with this line up. Everything except for the Shuffle is well done revision wise, I don't see where the issue is. This from somebody that is not to please with Apples desktop and portable lines - and isn't even a media player user at the moment.

Dave

 

[goosnarrggh]

Yeah PDA sales are in the tank. In part due to companies like Apple introducing smart cell phones. This unit however is very far from being a PDA. PDA's have never been associated with the ability to deliver multimedia.

You're right. Until we see an SDK, this unit is much more limited than a modern PDA.

Every full-fledged PDA on the market today (or for the last several years for that matter) has the potential to deliver multimedia, so that cannot be what sets this device apart.

On the Palm side, you can at least view photos on every Palm PDA. Once you step above the bottom-of-the-line Z22, you'll find that every current Palm PDA can also playback audio and full-screen video.

On the Windows Mobile side, every Windows Mobile device has Windows Media Player built in. You can also easily add support for a wide variety of non-Windows Media formats. Either way, that implies playback of audio and full-screen video.

In any event the key to all of this is OS/X on these devices. They give you the capability of a full blown computer in the palm of your hand. At least OS wise baring the obvious hardware limitations. Apple is not selling PDA's but rather hand held computing platforms that are all part of one family. They are optimized for different task obviously but share a common underlying system. Thus you have the specialized iPod Touch for multimedia and the iPhone for Cell usage. I'm sure we will have future products, fouced on what ever too.

Sure. But with the facilities provided through Windows CE APIs, the same potential exists in conventional PDAs. (Haters might like to deny it. But the truth is, the Windows CE API really is quite rich.)

The fact is, so far that potential hasn't caught on to spark a revolution of handheld computer applications. Maybe in the long run, the iPhone / iPod Touch will succeed where other handhelds have failed.

 

[madmaxmedia]

One point about the PDA thing-

I think it's valuable to take a step back, and consider what a PDA is- 'Personal Digital Assistant'. While most PDA's are associated with productivity tasks, there is a wide realm of activities that handheld devices are useful for.

Many people use PDA's solely for storing contact and datebook info, which is why smart cell phones have largely replaced them.

I'm not saying we should redefine how the term 'PDA' is used, but in a sense even previous iPods could be called PDA's, or at least the iLife version of a PDA. Then throw in a big screen and cool interface for photos, Wifi, and the best mobile browser on the market, and things start to get even more interesting.

The iPod Touch is obviously positioned first and foremost as an iPod- a music and now video player. But wifi and the touchscreen interface give it a world of possibilities. Possibilities that will be exploited regardless of whether Apple provides an SDK for it.

I don't think Apple is going to go out of its way to lock down the iPhone or iPod Touch any more than it already has (and look how quickly the iPhone was hacked.) Apple makes money on the hardware, so hacking will only increase sales and profits (unlike say hacking or modding video game consoles to do stuff other than playing games.)

Every full-fledged PDA on the market today (or for the last several years for that matter) has the potential to deliver multimedia, so that cannot be what sets this device apart.

The fact is, so far that potential hasn't caught on to spark a revolution of handheld computer applications. Maybe in the long run, the iPhone / iPod Touch will succeed where other handhelds have failed.

Apple's iPod stands out because in this current world of smartphones and dedicated music and video players, a PDA is largely a technology in search of a solution. There are a lot of things you can do with them, but the majority of the population doesn't need to edit Office documents on the go, and synchronize them with their PC, etc.

That being said, hackers are going to add a lot of PDA functionality to the iPhone and Touch over the months ahead. So basically many people like me are going to have their cake and eat it too. I was looking forward to the Touch as my new iPod, but I'm also looking forward to using it as I used to use a PDA. So as you say, I think it will succeed not only as an iPod but as sort of a hybrid device as well for those who want it.

 

[Thomas2006]

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.

The "touch" is the new "classic" and it is supposed to appeal to the same people the iPod classic is supposed to appeal to, but due to the amount of storage, or lack there of, it seems to be a 'white elephant in the line up'. As NAND flash memory gets cheaper the iPod touch will get larger capacities until it catches up to and replaces the iPod classic. It has started out with 8/16GB models, but they will move to 16/32GB then 32/64GB then, well, you get the picture, and best of all, the prices will stay the same or drop.

While adding "classic" to the original iPod gives consistency to the lineup, I think it has more to do with the iPod classic taking its first steps into hardware history. Due to the storage issue, 16GB for the "touch" vs. 160GB for the "classic" Apple has to sell both, but you can be sure they want to EOL the iPod classic ASAP. For this reason I do not think we will see any more hardware updates for the iPod classic. When the iPod touch get a 64GB model then the 80GB iPod classic will get dropped, and when the iPod touch gets a 128GB model the iPod classic will be but a memory.

 

[madmaxmedia]

Why would Apple want to EOL the Classic ASAP? What's the point, when Apple can offer a couple of different models depending on different users' habits? And make money either way?

Not long ago iPods topped out at 20GB, which seemed like a lot at the time. 16GB only seems small in comparison to the Classic models, but is still very large compared to the size of most peoples' iTunes collections. So it's not really a white elephant at all for many people.

Eventually, the HD may be totally eliminated from all iPods. But it will probably take another 2 years. Even then, someone will be complaining that they need the full terabyte for their music collection, so maybe Apple will always have an HD model. After all, they're not actually religiously opposed to hard drives you know-

The "touch" is the new "classic" and it is supposed to appeal to the same people the iPod classic is supposed to appeal to, but due to the amount of storage, or lack there of, it seems to be a 'white elephant in the line up'. As NAND flash memory gets cheaper the iPod touch will get larger capacities until it catches up to and replaces the iPod classic. It has started out with 8/16GB models, but they will move to 16/32GB then 32/64GB then, well, you get the picture, and best of all, the prices will stay the same or drop.

While adding "classic" to the original iPod gives consistency to the lineup, I think it has more to do with the iPod classic taking its first steps into hardware history. Due to the storage issue, 16GB for the "touch" vs. 160GB for the "classic" Apple has to sell both, but you can be sure they want to EOL the iPod classic ASAP. For this reason I do not think we will see any more hardware updates for the iPod classic. When the iPod touch get a 64GB model then the 80GB iPod classic will get dropped, and when the iPod touch gets a 128GB model the iPod classic will be but a memory.

 

[iJawn108]

I am going to texas(I live in Canada) in like a month or so, and I want a ****in iPhone. I remember a way to activate it for like $50 bucks and then you had a working iPhone minus the phone. How does that work and would I be able to do it and then use it here?

 

[danny_w]

I am going to texas(I live in Canada) in like a month or so, and I want a ****in iPhone. I remember a way to activate it for like $50 bucks and then you had a working iPhone minus the phone. How does that work and would I be able to do it and then use it here?

You can activate the non-phone features of the iPhone for free (I think the product is iActivator or something like that).

 

[Jarcrew]

I would genuinely hate the ability to see the future, but I wish I could just take a peak and see where iPods will be five years from now. Because I certainly can't see them falling off the top of the tree between now and then.

 

[iJawn108]

You can activate the non-phone features of the iPhone for free (I think the product is iActivator or something like that).

Oh wow! even cooler, I am sooo picking one up. I just want an original iPhone and I just like the look alot better to the iPod Touch.

Thank you for the info.

 

[m-dogg]

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.

Ummm...maybe you should just take your iPod touch to Orlando with you and leave the laptop at home!

Unless you have some specific need for heavier computing, I rather 'lug' the iPod over the laptop...

 

[A Pittarelli]

there are only 3 important factors here,

1) best pda ever, can do what most people a laptop for
2) future potential, when 3rd parties can make apps the "touch" devices will really take off
3) most people who buy ipods have expendable funds. people arent maxing their credit cards to get new apple products(i hope)