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 Released
- Thread starter smurfy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You seem to get it! Few seem to. You are absolutely spot on with this assessment. This has been going on for quite some time, but it has been accelerating as time passes.
Any trained analyst/investigator can observe and discern this is a focused effort. However, if you mention it, there is usually a sizable backlash from other posters. The majority are the ones participating in the Apple bashing. Many of them are Newbies and lack any substance, or credibility.
However, there are also some deep-planted bashers. Many of them have join dates in 2004 and forward. They may also have a couple thousand posts. This does not suggest everyone who complains about Apple is just bashing. But, you can (if you have the inclination) go back to their first post and start reading forward. It is very difficult to maintain a lie over an extended period of time, if you are constantly having to maintain it.
This is one of the skills, intelligence field agents are rigorously trained to do. Amateurs lack these skills, and the keen eye can detect their inconsistencies. The role I notice these individuals often playing is the 'Newbie back-up'.
The newbie writes a negative Apple post, or starts an anti-Apple thread. Regular members usually try to mollify the new person, but the thread gains negative momentum. Members will challenge the Newbie. Then the mole plants will come to the rescue, thus providing credibility to the original post.
I could go on, but it has been a waste of time in the past, and is probably the same now. The post history for threads and members is available here. A little research can allow people to draw their own conclusions.
According to the apple website when I do a comparison of all the ipods, the touch doesn't play games 
which is a shame
which is a shame
The reason for my gripe is I have a huge music collection. I don't think it's a terrible product, just I can't consider it right now. My 60 GB "In living color" iPod is three-quarters full, less than 14 GB available. I'm hoping in 2 years or so, the "iPod touch" will be able to replace the "iPod classic," or at least outpace it in storage, then I will buy it.
Otherwise, it's cool. The "iPod touch" is neat and I can't wait to see what it will do in the future.
Otherwise, it's cool. The "iPod touch" is neat and I can't wait to see what it will do in the future.
According to the apple website when I do a comparison of all the ipods, the touch doesn't play games
I have to say, I am massively disappointed in the iPod touch. From my perspective as a buyer who will now be going with the 160 Classic instead, Apple made 2 mistakes.
#1) They are too obsessed with size. They are touting here and there and all over how "slim" both the new classic and touch are. Who cares. Ipods were already small enough. I think almost everyone here would rather have a 160 gig touchscreen that is a little bigger than the one now, than pay $400 for barely more storage than a nano. Hell, if the 160 sucks too much battery, even an 80gig model touch would have been fine.
#2) The ipod touch's operating system is still too limited to be worth it if it doesn't have massive storage. Basically, the advantage to the touch functionally is the screen size, and a couple little neat tricks the classic can't do with a click wheel. However, since it can't hold much video anyway, what is the point. You might as well just get a video cable and hook your 160 gig classic up to another display source.
Basically, Apple misjudged why people were buying the iPhone. It is only worth it because it has a PHONE in it. Without the phone, you gotta offer up more than a paltry 16gb of storage. I mean, shouldn't they have been clued in? NO ONE WANTED THE 4GB IPHONE!!! They should have read that as "customers want more storage, Duh!!!!"
I'm gonna buy 16GB iPod Touch as soon as it comes into Best Buy!!
I am 1 dollar short though(*Wants to Hang Oneself*)
I am 1 dollar short though(*Wants to Hang Oneself*)
I posted this earlier in the iPod classic thread.
They really missed on the touch, although the battery life with a hard drive would be abysmal. So ok apple, I concede you do have a small point there.
For me I would love to have the touch with a higher capacity. I have nearly 9000 songs, and my 5.5G 60GB is nearly full (73MB available).
In my job having as much video content as possible is a high priority, and displaying it on a decent screen would be a great advantage.
Sorry apple, as a reader said in a previous post, I am kinda angry at this release.
My 2c.
They really missed on the touch, although the battery life with a hard drive would be abysmal. So ok apple, I concede you do have a small point there.
For me I would love to have the touch with a higher capacity. I have nearly 9000 songs, and my 5.5G 60GB is nearly full (73MB available).
In my job having as much video content as possible is a high priority, and displaying it on a decent screen would be a great advantage.
Sorry apple, as a reader said in a previous post, I am kinda angry at this release.
My 2c.
Two questions:
Two questions:
1. Does anyone know if the screen of the iPod touch is made of glass like the iPhone? Because if it isn't, it's going to scratch like CRAZY.
2. Am I just missing something, or are there no cases available with the iPod touch? (Unfortunately the back is still that same old scratch-hungry polished aluminum, unlike the iPhone.)
(As you may be able to tell, I loath scratched devices. My two-year-old 5G still looks brand-new because I'm so careful about not scratching it. )
Two questions:
1. Does anyone know if the screen of the iPod touch is made of glass like the iPhone? Because if it isn't, it's going to scratch like CRAZY.
2. Am I just missing something, or are there no cases available with the iPod touch? (Unfortunately the back is still that same old scratch-hungry polished aluminum, unlike the iPhone.)
(As you may be able to tell, I loath scratched devices. My two-year-old 5G still looks brand-new because I'm so careful about not scratching it.
)responsiveness
I can't be bothered to read all 13 pages of "It's not big enough!" so I apologize if this has already been covered, but has anyone considered that there may be more than one reason to use flash memory? Everyone's talking about slimness, and how they could care less, but honestly, if getting the device slimmer was the only benefit of using an expensive solution like flash, then Apple wouldn't have done it. There are three main benefits to using flash:
1) Slimness. Go ahead and whine about how it doesn't matter, but when you have a company that builds it's entire appeal on slick and cool, it matters. A lot.
2) Battery life. Spinning a hard drive, however small, eats up more battery power than flash does. And we all know that Apple's been slammed in the past on battery life. They're not going through that again.
3) Last but not least, UI responsiveness. Don't you just love that solid feel of a hard disk iPod, when you select an option and you can actually feel the drive spinning to access whatever it is you want? Well guess what. That lag would completely ruin the much-touted touch interface of the touch. Imagine you've spent millions engineering this touch sensitive interface that is polished, fast, and beautiful. Then you match it up to something that basically creates a second of lag behind most of the actions that a user would take. That destroys the slickness, the "elegance," as apple is so fond of saying, of the device. It completely cripples the main selling point, which is not, even if many think it is, "wow this can hold a lot of stuff!" That was the original selling point for the original iPod: your music library in your pocket. When's the last time Apple used that line in it's marketing? 5 years ago?
The product line is changing, people. It's not about carrying every little file and song and video you have. It's about connectivity and hardware/software. Apple knows that anyone who's spending 250+ on a multimedia device probably has at least one computer and broadband internet access. So much of the content that people want is online, which is why wifi is such a big deal with the new iPod. It's all a part of services and entertainment moving online, ala google's web apps. The new iPod is a bridge between the stance that the user should have all the files, and the stance that everything you really want is online. When the original iPod was introduced, online content for entertainment purposes was in its infancy, so the device had to be able to store all of the user's content - and the more, the better. Now, there's a lot more online, and connecting to that is more important. Also, people talk about capacity like they're expecting these tiny devices to keep up with their desktop drive capacity. We're entering an era of absurdly cheap 500gb hard drives, and they're only going to get cheaper and bigger. It would be folly for Apple to attempt to keep up with that kind of storage arms race when storage is no longer the main selling point of their product. Regardless of internet forums like these, Apple is right, from a business standpoint, to choose the priorities that it has: size, connectivity, slickness/user interface.
Just my .02.
I can't be bothered to read all 13 pages of "It's not big enough!" so I apologize if this has already been covered, but has anyone considered that there may be more than one reason to use flash memory? Everyone's talking about slimness, and how they could care less, but honestly, if getting the device slimmer was the only benefit of using an expensive solution like flash, then Apple wouldn't have done it. There are three main benefits to using flash:
1) Slimness. Go ahead and whine about how it doesn't matter, but when you have a company that builds it's entire appeal on slick and cool, it matters. A lot.
2) Battery life. Spinning a hard drive, however small, eats up more battery power than flash does. And we all know that Apple's been slammed in the past on battery life. They're not going through that again.
3) Last but not least, UI responsiveness. Don't you just love that solid feel of a hard disk iPod, when you select an option and you can actually feel the drive spinning to access whatever it is you want? Well guess what. That lag would completely ruin the much-touted touch interface of the touch. Imagine you've spent millions engineering this touch sensitive interface that is polished, fast, and beautiful. Then you match it up to something that basically creates a second of lag behind most of the actions that a user would take. That destroys the slickness, the "elegance," as apple is so fond of saying, of the device. It completely cripples the main selling point, which is not, even if many think it is, "wow this can hold a lot of stuff!" That was the original selling point for the original iPod: your music library in your pocket. When's the last time Apple used that line in it's marketing? 5 years ago?
The product line is changing, people. It's not about carrying every little file and song and video you have. It's about connectivity and hardware/software. Apple knows that anyone who's spending 250+ on a multimedia device probably has at least one computer and broadband internet access. So much of the content that people want is online, which is why wifi is such a big deal with the new iPod. It's all a part of services and entertainment moving online, ala google's web apps. The new iPod is a bridge between the stance that the user should have all the files, and the stance that everything you really want is online. When the original iPod was introduced, online content for entertainment purposes was in its infancy, so the device had to be able to store all of the user's content - and the more, the better. Now, there's a lot more online, and connecting to that is more important. Also, people talk about capacity like they're expecting these tiny devices to keep up with their desktop drive capacity. We're entering an era of absurdly cheap 500gb hard drives, and they're only going to get cheaper and bigger. It would be folly for Apple to attempt to keep up with that kind of storage arms race when storage is no longer the main selling point of their product. Regardless of internet forums like these, Apple is right, from a business standpoint, to choose the priorities that it has: size, connectivity, slickness/user interface.
Just my .02.
"Just video" is not true for the large screen. I know for sure I am going to want to read news and look things up on the internet , and that would be a lot harder with a classic iPod screen. It would also be a heck of a lot harder to impliment the touch screen keyboard with a much smaller face.
Also, not everyone was buying an iPhone because it was just a phone. In fact, the one reason I didn't buy an iPhone is because it is a phone. I don't want my phone mixed with my music player/PDA: just personal preference. A capacity of 4GB is also 4x smaller than 16GB, 2x less than the 8GB. If we were talking about 4MB vs 16 MB...sure, that's beans (not even). from 4GB to 16GB is huge when music files are around 3MB or so for MP3/MP4s. Also reiterating what people have said all along: this thing is NOT for storing 100 movies on. The best part about iPods as a whole is that you dont have to take everything with you. If you already watched movie X the day before, sync up and swap it for movie Y that day. That way there doesn't have to be 160GB of space.
I still say it's perfect: just what i've been waiting for.
Also, not everyone was buying an iPhone because it was just a phone. In fact, the one reason I didn't buy an iPhone is because it is a phone. I don't want my phone mixed with my music player/PDA: just personal preference. A capacity of 4GB is also 4x smaller than 16GB, 2x less than the 8GB. If we were talking about 4MB vs 16 MB...sure, that's beans (not even). from 4GB to 16GB is huge when music files are around 3MB or so for MP3/MP4s. Also reiterating what people have said all along: this thing is NOT for storing 100 movies on. The best part about iPods as a whole is that you dont have to take everything with you. If you already watched movie X the day before, sync up and swap it for movie Y that day. That way there doesn't have to be 160GB of space.
I still say it's perfect: just what i've been waiting for.
I'm not really too disappointed. Just surprised. Considering I have 2GB of music, its more than enough for me but I would have thought they'd have made the capacity larger.
i dont see what you are angry at. its the "Classic ipod" its supposed to be like the old ipods, thus the name. the space is a big enough improvement for me.
you dont have to have your whole library on the thing, keep ur current ipod to store all ur songs and put the best songs that you like on the touch ipod thingy.
if you can find another mp3/video player like the ipod that will hold all your videos you go find it, surely there must be something
You're not an engineer are you? Lol...Since the thing is gonna be thick as crap anyway, lets just throw in a thicker battery, to further start complaints on MR. Apple can't win ever...
Think about what people were paying for an 8gb Nano - $250
So for 50 more f***ing dollars you only get a touch screen with a bunch of new cool features, wifi, etc etc. Bitch more plz everyone
They are using flash in the iPod Touch and there is no 160GB flash drive, or at least at a size that would fit in an iPod, and an HD would make it huge so stop complaining about something they can't do right now.
You're kidding, right? The disappointment you're seeing is because Microsoft want's everyone to run out and buy the 160GB Zune? No? 160GB Sansa? Umm...
Did you consider that what you're seeing isn't people discounting what the Touch is about, but craving to have what the Touch gives but dealing with the fact that they have to sacrifice another feature they find important in order to downgrade to Touch?
This is why basic marketing says you always offer a Deluxe. There is always some fraction of the population willing to pay for it. I'm actually surprised by the number of people who seem to have the same needs I do. I guess I shouldn't be-- this is a Mac Forum, so we're more likely to hear from the high end users here.
I had been looking forward to this product for months, and frankly am quite disappointed. Apple has really missed the mark here. Prices are great, but I feel they have sacrificed too much in trying to make the iPod thin. The product would have flown off the shelves with a bigger capacity hard drive to support video. 16GB is just too measily. It had such potential, but the Touch is just a major letdown, and I pray that Apple doesn't get burned on this...
Actually the first two are both the same. They're both about size. When you design portable electronics you always trade operating time against size and weight.
Your third point is just wrong. I just browsed my 5G iPod and the drive didn't spin up until I started a song playing. The catalog is pre-generated and stored on disc. The first time it's turned on, the disc is spun up and the catalog is stored in battery backed RAM, where it stays until it puts itself into deep sleep. There is nothing about a hard drive that would impact responsiveness of the UI, with the sole exception being when playback begins.
Here, I think you're probably right. I travel a fair amount and like to have everything with me. For the target demographic though, YouTube actually seems to be a selling point.
For me though, it's still about carrying everything.
i dont see what you are angry at. its the "Classic ipod" its supposed to be like the old ipods, thus the name. the space is a big enough improvement for me.
you dont have to have your whole library on the thing, keep ur current ipod to store all ur songs and put the best songs that you like on the touch ipod thingy.
if you can find another mp3/video player like the ipod that will hold all your videos you go find it, surely there must be something
I was referring to the touch, not the classic. I already conceded that the hard drive in the touch would make the battery life almost non-existent, but imagine if they DID get it all to work. The damn thing would FLY off the shelves.
As for buying a touch just to carry SOME of the assets I have, why would I want to carry 2 ipods? I can afford it, I just don't want to.
And as for buying a different brand, that is blasphemy sir...
I am planning to get an iPod touch, either for my birthday or if I don't get it then buy it a month or so later. I am glad that they didn't go with a HD because then it wouldn't have enough battery to be really usable with that screen, and I am able to manage my music and videos to only have 16GB of the best on there.