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
As an owner of Nokia 770 (N800's predecessor) I think it would be prudent to point of few differences between iPod Touch and N800:
- You can install third-party apps on N800. It's totally open platform. You can't really do that on the Touch.
- Screen-resolution: N800: 800x480. Touch: 480x320.
- N800 has a videocamera for videoconferencing. Touch does not
- N800 has Bluetooth. Touch does not.
- N800 has a radio. Touch does not
- N800 has email. Touch does not
- You can use a full-blown word-processor on N800. Can't do that on the Touch
- N800 has expandable storage. Touch does not.
In short: the two aren't really comparable, since they are aimed at different things. That said, I'm currently thinking about selling my 770 and getting a Touch
.Not really. No iPod is meant to hold your entire video-collection. You have your music there and selection of your videos. I really see no problem with this. Most people could store their entire music-collection on the Touch, have a bunch of podcasts, audiobooks and pictures in there, and still have enough room for few movies. What more do you want?
Feel free to complain about the storage, but fact is that HD was never really an option and 32GB of Flash would be too expensive.
So, you are basically saying that having 16GB of storage in a device that is meant to play back video is more or less comparable to having 50MB of storage in a music-player? Um, it's not quite like that. Not even close.
And having HD in there would make it less mobile. Want to have ALL your videos with you AND have a large screen? Apple has a suitable product for you. I believe it's called "MacBook" or something like that.... It's mobile as well.
Well, you would run out of power long before you were through watching those moves. And having HD in there would mean running out of power even faster.
The device would have barely enough power to last through one video, so what's the point of carrying zillion videos with you?
Having large collection of music with you makes sense, since listening to music is passive and shuffling through the songs makes sense. Video is not like that. You need to be actively watching the video, and shuffle makes no sense. So you decide in advance what you want to watch, and then load that content on the device.
Do you carry iPod-charger with you wherever you go? I don't.
Seriously: the complaints in this thread are outrageous. So Apple should have released a product with 30+GB of storage, good battery-life, small size and weight and still be priced reasonably? I don't think you can combine all of those in to a single device just yet.
Dear Apple,
You are a bunch of incompetent retards.
Oh look, our resident whiner is whining again! If you can't fit your libary on the touch, get the Classic instead. OR better yet; get the Zune, so we can FINALLY put your Apple-whining to rest!
Um, iPod Touch is no more widescreen that iPod Classic is, and Classic will hold your library with ease. So what exactly is the problem here? "But I wanna buy the Touch!". Well waah waah waah.
Seriously: Do you ever NOT complain about Apple? Every single time they do something or release something, you star whining how retarded Apple is and how the new product sucks. EVERY.... SINGLE.... TIME.... I don't say this often, but maybe you simply should buy a Dell and a Zune, so you could escape the hell Apple has apparently subjected you to.
I for one think this is a remarkable upgrade in all respects. I ordered myself a 16 GB iPod Touch, and am impatiently awaiting its arrival. Here's what I don't want to see:
1) Rev "A" defects (even though it's modeled after the iphone, it's still the first touch iPod). Mind you, in all the ipods we've owned I've never once had a defect so...
2) I hope we don't get an e-mail saying it's going to be delayed 'til whenever. I hope they keep their promise of a september (late) ship date!
I have 14.5 GB of Music that is all on my 5 G video now. I listen almost exclusively to my top rated playlist which is about 2-300 songs lol. What can i say, I don't like all of the music I have on my mac (old ripped CDs).
I am excited for the slick video feature as all my uni lectures are uploaded in an "iPod ready" format! How sick is that! Literally it's just a matter of saving it on my computer and then copying it over.
I am going to put my 5 G in the car with my FM transmitter (which works really well surprisingly), and I'm no longer going to use my Dell x50v pda. the web experience and the media experience will obviously be better on the iPod but the calendar/scheduling program will probably be inferior. But hey, it's worth the tradeoff. I would have welcomed an 80 GB iPod touch, but I ordered this one anyway because I really don't feel like I need to have it all at once. I'm pretty sure the battery on my iPod touch will barely be enough to listen to all of the songs I like at once.
As long as it's easy to swap music on the ipod for other stuff (I've never had to do that before!), I'm ok.
Bring it on!
1) Rev "A" defects (even though it's modeled after the iphone, it's still the first touch iPod). Mind you, in all the ipods we've owned I've never once had a defect so...
2) I hope we don't get an e-mail saying it's going to be delayed 'til whenever. I hope they keep their promise of a september (late) ship date!
I have 14.5 GB of Music that is all on my 5 G video now. I listen almost exclusively to my top rated playlist which is about 2-300 songs lol. What can i say, I don't like all of the music I have on my mac (old ripped CDs).
I am excited for the slick video feature as all my uni lectures are uploaded in an "iPod ready" format! How sick is that! Literally it's just a matter of saving it on my computer and then copying it over.
I am going to put my 5 G in the car with my FM transmitter (which works really well surprisingly), and I'm no longer going to use my Dell x50v pda. the web experience and the media experience will obviously be better on the iPod but the calendar/scheduling program will probably be inferior. But hey, it's worth the tradeoff. I would have welcomed an 80 GB iPod touch, but I ordered this one anyway because I really don't feel like I need to have it all at once. I'm pretty sure the battery on my iPod touch will barely be enough to listen to all of the songs I like at once.
As long as it's easy to swap music on the ipod for other stuff (I've never had to do that before!), I'm ok.
Bring it on!
Are you familiar with the iPod Classic? 160GB for $349...
160 gb is ridiculous (for me) but probably isn't to a lot of customers. Good to see Apple is trying hard to appeal to everyone.
Man, that iPod touch is gonna be so great next to my mbp!
TV. I'll be perfectly happy with my 16Gb iPod touch in a few weeks.
Surely 3,000 songs and 30 Seinfeld episodes is enough for one bus trip?
Surely 3,000 songs and 30 Seinfeld episodes is enough for one bus trip?
Are you familiar with the iPod Classic? 160GB for $349...
If they wanted the Touch (we ARE talking about the Touch, not the Classic) to have that kind of storage, it would have meant using HD. And that would have meant bigger device with less battery-life. And that would have meant bigger batteries, which would have increased the size and weight even more. So while the price might have been reasonable, it would have been a lot bigger than heavier than it is now.
I maintain that satisfying the whiners here would be impossible. They could have had the storage-space, but then they would be complaining about size and/or battery-life.
OK, granted it'll be larger (and heavier), but according to the specs the Classic gets the same battery life (both audio and video play time) as the new Touch.
Of course, this probably won't satisfy the whiners, but for some (myself included), the larger Classic is the only device that would actually hold all of my music. Not that I'm complaining.
It's not amazing. It's a new, top of the range, flagship iPod that only has 16 gigs of storage. That 14 gigs less than my 4 year old 3rd gen iPod.
Some people might call that a backward step, and theyd be right. As far as storage goes at least.
I pre-ordered a 80 gig black iPod Classic from Amazon.com earlier tonight but decided to cancel. According to an article from March of this year, 32 gigs of flash was around $160. You gotta figure that's gonna get better within the next year or two and hopefully we will finally have a 80-100 gig iPod Touch. I'll wait until then before upgrading my 30 gig iPod Photo.
I just ordered 8gb iPod touch. At first I was annoyed that Apple didn't introduce iPod touch with big capacity (=HD). Otherwise I really like iPod touch features and looks (although I wouldn't mind if it was thicker with HD).
Currently I have a 80gb 5.5G iPod, and I'm planning to keep that in use and iPod touch is not going to replace that. For a music player, 8gb or 16gb simply isn't enough - but then again, for a music player, those iPod touch features aren't necessary, because listening music is the main feature.
So I'll keep old 80gb iPod as a music player, and this new 8gb iPod touch will be a media device with some music, some videos, some photos and web browser. Maybe someday when hybrid drives become more common, I'll replace these two devices with one device that does it all - store all my music and also have room for videos and photos... with a nice large touch screen
Currently I have a 80gb 5.5G iPod, and I'm planning to keep that in use and iPod touch is not going to replace that. For a music player, 8gb or 16gb simply isn't enough - but then again, for a music player, those iPod touch features aren't necessary, because listening music is the main feature.
So I'll keep old 80gb iPod as a music player, and this new 8gb iPod touch will be a media device with some music, some videos, some photos and web browser. Maybe someday when hybrid drives become more common, I'll replace these two devices with one device that does it all - store all my music and also have room for videos and photos... with a nice large touch screen
I really don't see how you can say it's insufficient! Will you be using 80GB in one journey? Take the time to prioritise your music and video... it's easy.
OK, granted it'll be larger (and heavier), but according to the specs the Classic gets the same battery life (both audio and video play time) as the new Touch.
Of course, this probably won't satisfy the whiners, but for some (myself included), the larger Classic is the only device that would actually hold all of my music. Not that I'm complaining.
Actually, the specs claim that the Classic is getting much better audio battery life and slightly better video battery life: 30/6 for the 80 gig and 40/7 for the 160 gig vs. 22/5 for the Touch.
OK, granted it'll be larger (and heavier), but according to the specs the Classic gets the same battery life (both audio and video play time) as the new Touch.
Of course, this probably won't satisfy the whiners, but for some (myself included), the larger Classic is the only device that would actually hold all of my music. Not that I'm complaining.
The Classic has better battery-life than the Touch. Classic gets 30 hours of audio (80GB) and 5 hours of video, whereas Touch gets 22 hours of audio and 5 hours of video. So Classic gets better battery-life with HD than Touch gets with Flash. If you replaced the Flash with HD, the battery-life would go way down, and the size and weight of the device would go up. And in order to beef up the battery-life you would have to have bigger battery, further increasing the size and weight.
In short: Less battery-life than 80GB Classic, bigger size than 160GB Classic. and the 160GB Classic is at the limits of pocketability as it is.
Yeah, how 'bout that, huh? That's the part of this that has me most confused...
See, that would totally offset the capacity problem for me-- if I could resync to my home desktop remotely, I wouldn't feel so disconnected from my library. It would be slow, no doubt, but I could be on the road and swap video I'd seen for new stuff and upload pictures I'd sucked out of my camera to free space overnight. I've been wondering why phones haven't seen this as a way around the capacity problem from the getgo-- data is still too expensive over cellular, though. WiFi sidesteps this problem.
Can we tone down the rhetoric against people who are disappointed in the release? I've bought 3 different iPods as the capacity has increased and I've been happy with each, so I'm not part of the "never happy" crowd and I doubt the other people who are disappointed in this are either. I'm well aware of what the technical issues are, which is why I've been trying to explain for months why the "all flash lineup" wasn't feasible. I'm also aware that a hard drive based unit would certainly be thicker and probably more expensive. I suspect the other people who have posted get this too.
This doesn't quite diffuse the question, unfortunately... You're comparing battery life across two entirely different products-- even the 160GB has a longer life than the 80. I don't know if that's because of a bigger battery or a bigger RAM buffer, but I'd guess it's the former given that the ratio of battery lives is the same as the ratio of volumes. Could a Touch with the same depth as a 160GB classic get similar battery life to the Flash based Touch with some good design? Yeah, I think so. It'll be easier to judge once someone takes one of these things apart and we see how much of it is battery.
The battery life of the Touch and 80GB also matches the ratio of unit depths, but the Touch is a bigger device over all and is so slim that glass, display and metal make up a disproportionate fraction of the depth, so that comparison can't really be made.
You do need more than 2 hours of video to make it worthwhile at all. If that can't be bought with battery capacity it can be bought with the size of the RAM buffer so that hard drive can sleep. DRAM capacity has been doubling at the same rate as Flash.
Two things would have to change to make this a reality: size and cost. Size is obvious-- you'd probably have to bring the depth back to 14mm. Cost is harder to estimate, but by stripping one of the flash chips and shrinking the other to only hold the OS, or stripping both flash chips and adding a DRAM they could probably still keep it under $500. You'd probably have to price it there anyway to keep the product matrix sane.
UK Here: Why must be wait a month for it?!
Should be wait for iPhone (yes, two different things, I know).
Thanks
Not that different. All the Touch is an iPhone with a phone! What's the point of that. I'm waiting for Apple to introduce a proper 3G iPhone to the UK.
The Touch is a brand-new line of iPods, it's not the continuation of the classic iPod that you have. If you want to look how YOUR iPod has progressed over time, take a look at iPod Classic. THAT is the direct continuation of your iPod, iPod touch is not.
Those people can get the Classic that has more features, more storage and smaller size than their current iPod does. What exactly is the problem?
Sure, I would love for the Touch to have 64GB Flash. Who wouldn't? But we need to figure out what's doable and what's not. 64GB of Flash is not doable. Neither is 32GB. using a HD would mean compromising on the design and/or battery-life.
I have around 1000 songs, and most of those go unlistened.
Get the 160GB Classic and AV-cables. Then you have all the storage you could want, and you could hook it up to a big screen if needed.
Why? Did they release a product that is worse than the one before it? The way I see things, both the Nano and Classic are A LOT better than the iPods they are replacing were. They also released a new line of iPods called "Touch". Touch does not replace any of the existing devices, it's a brand-new device. The direct replacement for your iPod is the Classic, and I believe the new model mops the floor with your model. So what is the problem here?