Yup and its the first iPod touch, Wi-Fi features will be added with time....hopefully
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
Yup and its the first iPod touch, Wi-Fi features will be added with time....hopefully
So if you don't want all the extra stuff and just want storage then buy an iPod classic. Or do you just want the flashy touch interface?
I suspect that this is the case. Its funny but people just don't seem to grasp how useful this little gadget will be. It removes the considerable expense of a Cell Phone and provides a modest platform for field apps. I just see so many uses for this thing that I suspect that it will become a major seller for Apple. Possibly outstripping all other devices in sales.
Given all of that if I go out and purchase something it will be an iPhone. The simple reality there is that I don't want to carry more than one personal device. At work it is another story altogether. Cell phones don't work there. Cameras of any type are not permitted either. But we have RF networking and web based apps.
Dave
Funny the second post with this bent and I thought that was what the original poster was trying to say. How did things get twisted around?
I expect we'll see a HDD Touch soon enough. If you don't like the choice between the classic and the touch, just wait! People couldn't wait for the iPod Touch and bought an iPhone even though they didn't need one... and look what happened yesterday... they got pwned. $200 beta test fee and you needn't have bothered, boy do I feel sorry for you! NOT! Just have a bit of patience. If a product isn't suitable for you then here's an idea: don't buy it.
Apple don't tend to release something if they think it's substandard. A bunch of internet geeks on a forum say "I don't mind a 5 minute battery life, interface lag and a thick and ugly form factor, just give me a 160GB iTouch!!!1!11one!" - they don't care, it goes against their ethos, and to a company that's very important. The customer is not always right (except in PR, where this lie is often spread)
Once it's possible to do a massive capacity Touch and not have to sacrifice their quality standards, I'm sure they will go ahead and do it. But if you want someone to release a sub-standard product just to please your desires and impatience you're going to have to look to someone other than Apple... it just won't happen.
I actually think they'll manage to do a high capacity one fairly soon. I don't think they'd honestly intended to make the iPod Touch, but because of all the rumours and speculation they had to whip one up as quickly as possible to avoid looking stupid, and then drop the iPhone cost in a desperate bid to keep it popular. However it'll probably turn out to be the correct decision: it simply means they haven't had time to think up a *decent*, high quality answer to the matter of including a HDD.
Apple don't tend to release something if they think it's substandard. A bunch of internet geeks on a forum say "I don't mind a 5 minute battery life, interface lag and a thick and ugly form factor, just give me a 160GB iTouch!!!1!11one!" - they don't care, it goes against their ethos, and to a company that's very important. The customer is not always right (except in PR, where this lie is often spread)
Once it's possible to do a massive capacity Touch and not have to sacrifice their quality standards, I'm sure they will go ahead and do it. But if you want someone to release a sub-standard product just to please your desires and impatience you're going to have to look to someone other than Apple... it just won't happen.
I actually think they'll manage to do a high capacity one fairly soon. I don't think they'd honestly intended to make the iPod Touch, but because of all the rumours and speculation they had to whip one up as quickly as possible to avoid looking stupid, and then drop the iPhone cost in a desperate bid to keep it popular. However it'll probably turn out to be the correct decision: it simply means they haven't had time to think up a *decent*, high quality answer to the matter of including a HDD.
I'm probably chiming in quite late here and it's probably already been said, but.....as a video Ipod, this thing is useless. So to me, it's nothing more than a ploy to get us all to buy the iphone. If you buy the iPod touch, youre not fitting all of your music and videos on it. So, why buy it? Why not spend a little more and get that iPhone you've been holding out on? You won't fit all your music and videos on there either so....
I think that a lot of people don't understand just how great a little device the Touch is. As to Apple and its memory choices, I just don't believe they had a choice considering the volume of Flash that Apple uses.
They hitt the ball out of the park on everything they delivered today except for the Shuffle. They should have upgraded memory on that one. 2 gig would have been good there.
I see a lot of potential in the line up. The Touch should be considered as the introduction of a new product line. It really is a simple hand held computer. Hopefully it will be exploited as such real soon. Frankly this is the best I've seen Apple do with product refreshes and introductions in a very long time. If only they could get their collective heads together and do an honest refresh to the laptop line.
Dave
Ipod classic has better battery life than the Touch. In fact the 160Gb has twice the battery life for audio.
I don't think this argument holds up at all, an 80Gb iPod touch would be thicker than the flash one, but it wouldn't necessarily have a significantly worse battery.
Not really... He may be in the minority of people who live on this website but outside of the Mac Zealot world 8/16 is more than enough. I've got tons of friends who have 4GB mini's and it holds ALL their songs so tack on, say, 4 movies, and 12 TV shows and there's your 16GB. To the masses 8/16 is plenty. Heck - I have about 4k songs on my computer but I went through them all with my iPod and rated them and then only synced the ones rated 3 or higher onto my iPhone and that leaves room for 1GB of photos and about 8 or 9 TV shows. I'm content with the 8GB iPhone even tho I've got well over 30GB worth of stuff on my iTunes. You guys just need to realize that having that much music around with you ALL the time is worthless. Can you honestly tell me that within the past year you've listened to all, say, 4000 songs on your iPod? I highly, highly, doubt it...
with a screen that size, and touch capability, they battery life would be worse than that of a iPod classic
It gets better battery-life because it has smaller screen, less sophisticated UI (less need for power-hungry CPU's) no WiFi etc. etc. Fact is that Flash consumes a lot less power than HD's do. So try to guess what would happen to battery-life, if Apple replaced the flash in Touch with HD. I wouldn't be surprised if the battery-life was cut by third. And since that HD would take more space, the device would need to be bigger as well. And to bring the battery-life back up, Apple would need beefier batteries, again increasing the size and weight.
It would.
I would not say "useless", as many folks have cellphones that they like (or can't get out from under anytime soon) or they just don't want to deal with a new contract or a new carrier. So, for them, the iPod Touch has definite benefits.
But I agree with you 110% that if you were in the market for an iPhone - or even thought that it might be your next phone when it came time to replace your current one - the iPod Touch will not be an option for most of those folks, who will instead choose the iPhone instead.
i think a 16gb iPhone should have replace the 4gb iPhone, considering they did a 16gb touch, i dont see the physical or technical reason why this wouldnt be the next step in the iPhone family.
It's the widescreen, stoopid
Finally an iPod that is suitable for watching video. It's the widescreen...perfect marriage for video. All other iPods are positively lame for video by comparison --- tiny, tiny screen. So we finally get the right form factor for video -- a truly great one -- but the storage is nano-sized on the low end, or 2nd Gen (pre video) iPod on the high end. The "touch" aspect is really the least of the appeal for me. If the storage was ample enough for loads of video, it'd truly be the perfect iPod for its core areas: music, photos and at last -- video!
This is all about trying to sell "iPhones" to folks who don't want AT&T contracts, are unlikely to ever buy one, and are relatively cost conscious (relatively ;-). If they made an "iPod Touch" -- sans phone -- that had massively better storage than the iPhone, it would cannabalize iPhone sales, an emerging and important market for Apple that unlike the iPod, they can't take for granted. For instance, some folks might decide that a massively better iPod video plus a cheap throwaway cell phone might be a sweeter deal than the current iPhone with its anemic storage, expensive and limited cell partners, and the slow EDGE network.
iPhone is more important to Apple right now than creating the ultimate iPod. "Touch" is for the folks on the iPhone fence. Besides, they can (and will!) sell you a larger capacity iPod Touch later, to replace your current nano-sized model. Apple wins both ways. The consumer, well---it pays to be on the trailing edge of technology.
Finally an iPod that is suitable for watching video. It's the widescreen...perfect marriage for video. All other iPods are positively lame for video by comparison --- tiny, tiny screen. So we finally get the right form factor for video -- a truly great one -- but the storage is nano-sized on the low end, or 2nd Gen (pre video) iPod on the high end. The "touch" aspect is really the least of the appeal for me. If the storage was ample enough for loads of video, it'd truly be the perfect iPod for its core areas: music, photos and at last -- video!
This is all about trying to sell "iPhones" to folks who don't want AT&T contracts, are unlikely to ever buy one, and are relatively cost conscious (relatively ;-). If they made an "iPod Touch" -- sans phone -- that had massively better storage than the iPhone, it would cannabalize iPhone sales, an emerging and important market for Apple that unlike the iPod, they can't take for granted. For instance, some folks might decide that a massively better iPod video plus a cheap throwaway cell phone might be a sweeter deal than the current iPhone with its anemic storage, expensive and limited cell partners, and the slow EDGE network.
iPhone is more important to Apple right now than creating the ultimate iPod. "Touch" is for the folks on the iPhone fence. Besides, they can (and will!) sell you a larger capacity iPod Touch later, to replace your current nano-sized model. Apple wins both ways. The consumer, well---it pays to be on the trailing edge of technology.
How, exactly? If the movie is about 500 megs, it means that you could fit around 16 movies on the 8GB Touch, with 16GB touch holding 32 movies. How exactly is that "useless"? Seriously? Here's a hint: It's not supposed to hold your entire movie-collection
So I could watch movies on the go? It's not meant to hold your entire collection of movies, and there's no point in carrying all your movies on an iPod. Having all your music makes sense, but having all your videos does not.
Because I have no need for a phone, but I do have a need for an iPod that has more storage-space than my current 6GB iPod Mini does?
So what`When you are watching a video on the iPod, does it matter that does it have 10GB or 100GB of storage, as long as it's capable of holding the video you are watching? Or are you one of those who want to have EVERYTHING on them because they do not know what they might do 10 minutes from now?
Seriously: When you head out the door, decide what you want to watch, and sync that content to the iPod. It really is not that difficult.
One reason I haven't brought the classic (as it's now known) ipod is that fragile magnetic disc spinning at 10000 rpm and with a read/write head floating on a micron thick cushion of air suspended above it. They are fine in a stationary lap top or desk top but I just couldn't go out jogging with one and be sure it would be working when I'd finished. Call me a luddite but there are reports of ipod disk failures all the time in the Aussie press.
I have a shuffle and for what I use it for its perfect. I just take what I need from my PC and go out. Why would you need to carry 40000 songs with you, this is a back up device as well as an MP3 player.
The solid state touch looks brilliant and is the future of apple and quite possibly computing. Apple were possibly considering reliability in not going for a hard drive. Will skype work on it?? We have a $90 cordless logitech skype phone and its brilliant, particularly using skype out at 1p a minute to most international destinations. Could the touch be used like this as a skype phone??? Skype should get their application converted to run on it.
I have a shuffle and for what I use it for its perfect. I just take what I need from my PC and go out. Why would you need to carry 40000 songs with you, this is a back up device as well as an MP3 player.
The solid state touch looks brilliant and is the future of apple and quite possibly computing. Apple were possibly considering reliability in not going for a hard drive. Will skype work on it?? We have a $90 cordless logitech skype phone and its brilliant, particularly using skype out at 1p a minute to most international destinations. Could the touch be used like this as a skype phone??? Skype should get their application converted to run on it.
wi-fi
So i see a lot of negative comments on here. I think the 16g should be at least $50 cheaper and who cares about buying songs in Starbucks. It's only for them to make money, i don't see how it's a convenience for us.
Anyway.... I think it looks cool. So slim and high-tech. Personally i think 16g is enough room. I manage my music well and have no desire to carry my entire collection with me. 1/4 of it is fine with me.
I'm just concerned about being able to truly enjoy the Wi-Fi. What is it with Hot Spots? I've only ever worked on a desktop (G5 now) and don't quite get wireless internet and hot spots. Will i get very frustrated with my new $400 gadget because i won't have access to Yahoo? If i walk through NYC, will i have internet access?
So i see a lot of negative comments on here. I think the 16g should be at least $50 cheaper and who cares about buying songs in Starbucks. It's only for them to make money, i don't see how it's a convenience for us.
Anyway.... I think it looks cool. So slim and high-tech. Personally i think 16g is enough room. I manage my music well and have no desire to carry my entire collection with me. 1/4 of it is fine with me.
I'm just concerned about being able to truly enjoy the Wi-Fi. What is it with Hot Spots? I've only ever worked on a desktop (G5 now) and don't quite get wireless internet and hot spots. Will i get very frustrated with my new $400 gadget because i won't have access to Yahoo? If i walk through NYC, will i have internet access?
ask mayor....
most likely you need city wide free wi-fi to use it out door. some stores might have it, other might not.. nobody knows, you just need to try out. take your wi-fi detector (such as a palm TX
), scan network everywhere.....
Amusing
As a nano owner, I don't really disagree. But your reasoning flies against one of the main selling points of the iPod since its inception: Massive storage in your pocket for all of your music (and later, photos too, and then video, too). It was this reasoning that gave Apple a leg up on its competitors who insisted on using tiny Flash modules solely (less than 1 gig, even just 128 meg!) Bigger was better; Apple routinely bragged about storage in each new gen. So did the Dogged Apple Defenders.
When video enters the picture, storage demands go UP (not down...), and that widescreen SCREAMS for video; the iPod Classic screens pales in comparison for watching video. So just when storage demands start to skyrocket, Apple and its dogged defenders tell us, "oooh, you don't really need all of that in your pocket, do you?" I find this hysterical!
Boy, it is too bad for Samsung, SanDisk, RIO, Creative and others that they didn't realize years ago that the need for a gazillion songs in your pocket was just overblown, and a daily sync to get the latest content should be good enough for anyone (except some whiners, of course If they had, just maybe they would have had a chance against Apple. Chumps.
As a nano owner, I don't really disagree. But your reasoning flies against one of the main selling points of the iPod since its inception: Massive storage in your pocket for all of your music (and later, photos too, and then video, too). It was this reasoning that gave Apple a leg up on its competitors who insisted on using tiny Flash modules solely (less than 1 gig, even just 128 meg!) Bigger was better; Apple routinely bragged about storage in each new gen. So did the Dogged Apple Defenders.
When video enters the picture, storage demands go UP (not down...), and that widescreen SCREAMS for video; the iPod Classic screens pales in comparison for watching video. So just when storage demands start to skyrocket, Apple and its dogged defenders tell us, "oooh, you don't really need all of that in your pocket, do you?" I find this hysterical!
Boy, it is too bad for Samsung, SanDisk, RIO, Creative and others that they didn't realize years ago that the need for a gazillion songs in your pocket was just overblown, and a daily sync to get the latest content should be good enough for anyone (except some whiners, of course
If they had, just maybe they would have had a chance against Apple. Chumps.Compromise
Some people buy iPods because they can have great designed product with no no compromises. Now there is no such thing anymore. Neither 160G or Touch can be said to be top of the line and compromise some features.
=> Waiting for 160G Touch
Some people buy iPods because they can have great designed product with no no compromises. Now there is no such thing anymore. Neither 160G or Touch can be said to be top of the line and compromise some features.
=> Waiting for 160G Touch
Apple is FAIL. It just goes to show a company like Apple is not above releasing hardware that far fails to exceed expectations. These new iPr0ds are designed snatch up a few pennies from a few people who couldn't past the iPhr0n credit check. Capacity on these new devices should match or exceed whats available now. I'm sorry Apple but you are falling into the "shiny bits of plastic & metal" category. You had me for a minute. I'm looking for the next "Big Thing" and Apple obviously doesn't have that yet.