when ppl do feature requests, they say all this crazy stuff, like a slide out qwerty and gps, thats stupid (i mean its IYO) but first of all get an iphone if you want gps and camera.. anyway, i really think we (touch owners) should get a speaker.. thats all im asking for...i have wanted exteranl speakers on the ipod way before iphohne and touch cam out...how likely do you think this is?
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 What the touch REALLY needs
- Thread starter 125037
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pretty unlikely. The speaker in the iPhone isn't meant for music - it's meant for speakerphone, as a speaker of that size simply can't produce good music. Plus, they add more bulk (for a feature most people would never use).
If you want to listen to music, your best bet is either headphones or external speakers.
If you want to listen to music, your best bet is either headphones or external speakers.
agreed, or at least gesture based volume, pause/play, and next/previous controls. That way you don't have to look at the screen to do everything, you can just swipe or tap or something.
true that. that is why i sold mine 2 weekd ago! BUT I REALLY WANT IT BACK. Im gunna wait until an update first tho. the only thing that sucks was i sold it for 150 with the jan update and there was NOTHING wrong with it.. **STUPID ME** i miss it. im stuck with my ol samsung ypk3 so at least i get a little bit of "touching" to do.
I definitely agree that the iPod touch needs a speaker, I'd love that soooo much. Hopefully it'll come in the 2nd or 3rd gen.
I'm a little addicted to media players. I have a Touch, Zune 80, Samsung P2, and a Philips SA5245BT. None have internal speakers. The Zune and Touch really nag me for that reason. The Samsung and Philips both have bluetooth. Once you invest in bluetooth, the usefulness is pretty amazing. I've got bluetooth headphones, a bluetooth adapter for my ipod docks, and a bluetooth adapter for my home theater amplifier. I love the Touch. Stick Bluetooth in it and I'll sell all the others (except the Zune with 80gb storage). Check my blog for details.
I think a speaker would be a terrible idea.. (IMO)
Battery Life Issues
Bulk
Sound Quality
Price Increase
Tacky
Battery Life Issues Bulk Sound Quality Price Increase Tacky
I think a speaker would be a terrible idea.. (IMO)
I completly agree with what you say. But you forgot
Kids on public transport listening to music without headphones on.I never ever missed speakers on my iPod touch, and I can't imagine using them.
I agree too. I use my nano when I'm driving (hooked to a radio transmitter in the cigarette lighter) Don't really want to be taking my eyes off the road to be tapping album covers..
The nano is much more practical when you are on the move.
I completly agree with what you say. But you forgot
I never ever missed speakers on my iPod touch, and I can't imagine using them.
LOL! I had that one on the back burner, then I forgot it when I was replying to the thread. I was going to totally say that though. It would be so annoying.
I think a speaker would be a terrible idea.. (IMO)
I completly agree with what you say. But you forgot
I never ever missed speakers on my iPod touch, and I can't imagine using them.
I think the speakers, bluetooth, and external volume controls are great ideas, I agree that the price increase would be a bad thing, but I'd pay a little more for the convenience. As for the speaker criticism:
if the battery life is a problem for you don't use the speaker, my battery lasts for daysI find that the touch is to skinny to hold comfortably without a casethe sound quality would suck, but for alarms (the current alarm speaker is way to quiet) and you tube videos who cares?I'm not sure what you mean by tacky, the iPhone has a external speaker, is it "Tacky"?I agree that it would be annoying to have kids on public transit using it to play their music, but they are already annoying me with their cell phones and loud talking, how is keeping a speaker out of the touch solving that? Punk kids will always be annoying, buy some noise isolating headphones they work wonders.
The day Apple put a speaker on any iPod, will be the day I boycott the iPod line. The iPod was launched as the 'personal' music player. Very important word there, 'personal':
PERSONAL
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private: a personal opinion.
Ok, in certain situations music is meant to be shared, and in alot of those situations this is great (Concerts, Conferences, Public Performances), but in others it's annoying, irritating and widely disliked. Because we are talking about a mass-market product, you can't stop these people from using a situation like having built in external speakers, irresponsibly - unless, the option isn't there to use, as it currently isn't (Woo Hoo!).
Ever been on the bus and some hard-knock who seems to fancies himself has brought along his portable speakers/phone/mp4 player along for the ride?, blasting whatever junk he likes listening to down your and everyone else's ear-drums, for the entire duration? - if you haven't then you won't understand my argument. Personally, I think the iPod should remain an iPod - meaning, you play what you want, when you want to, wherever you want to, but with headphones. It's your music at the end of the day. Music preference is a matter of personal opinion, and because music has such mass variation, not every piece of music suits everybody's listening preference.
In short, I am 100% against a speaker for the iPod touch, classic, nano and future iPod's, for the above reasons, and I think adding one to the iPhone was a huge mistake.
What the iPod touch REALLY needs is bluetooth, but thats for another thread ...
My .02 cents.
R-Fly
PERSONAL
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private: a personal opinion.
Ok, in certain situations music is meant to be shared, and in alot of those situations this is great (Concerts, Conferences, Public Performances), but in others it's annoying, irritating and widely disliked. Because we are talking about a mass-market product, you can't stop these people from using a situation like having built in external speakers, irresponsibly - unless, the option isn't there to use, as it currently isn't (Woo Hoo!).
Ever been on the bus and some hard-knock who seems to fancies himself has brought along his portable speakers/phone/mp4 player along for the ride?, blasting whatever junk he likes listening to down your and everyone else's ear-drums, for the entire duration? - if you haven't then you won't understand my argument. Personally, I think the iPod should remain an iPod - meaning, you play what you want, when you want to, wherever you want to, but with headphones. It's your music at the end of the day. Music preference is a matter of personal opinion, and because music has such mass variation, not every piece of music suits everybody's listening preference.
In short, I am 100% against a speaker for the iPod touch, classic, nano and future iPod's, for the above reasons, and I think adding one to the iPhone was a huge mistake.
What the iPod touch REALLY needs is bluetooth, but thats for another thread ...
My .02 cents.
R-Fly
I agree with you 100% for most of the iPod line, but the iPhone and Touch are not just iPods they have a lot more uses. Having an external speaker would enable incoming e-mail alerts, an alarm that you can hear, and the ability to enjoy music, video, or games in the privacy of your own home without having to use headphones or haul around speakers.
People are going to be annoying no matter what features you keep off of the Touch. All the buses in my area have signs that say no music without headphones and I would assume that they do in your city too, so if this is really a problem for you either confront the individual causing the disturbance or tell the bus driver and he will. If you prefer to not to be involved in any form of confrontation then get a pair of noise isolating headphones and keep quiet, but I would be willing to bet that you aren't the only one on the bus that these jerks are annoying and if everyone just sits there annoyed and quiet then the problem is going to get worse. Stand up and fight the real problem, not against a useful feature that people can use for legitimate purposes.
I don't really care about the speaker, it would be a decent feature added if it didn't come at a price (battery life) but it's not something I'm hoping for. Some way to change volume or tracks without having to look at the device though, I think that's pretty key. I'd love to see that implemented somehow, but I don't expect it.
Here are some cheap add-on speakers that connect to the dock connector, and don't require batteries-
http://www.kaidomain.com/WEBUI/ProductDetail.aspx?TranID=845
I wouldn't use them for music, but for videos, YouTube, that sort of thing they are not bad for the price.
http://www.kaidomain.com/WEBUI/ProductDetail.aspx?TranID=845
I wouldn't use them for music, but for videos, YouTube, that sort of thing they are not bad for the price.
Yea, I don't think I'd like speakers, I mean I have the option of buying a $10 set which isn't much wider then the ipod itselt but I don't want to.
I would also LOVE to have a audio control option. If not on the side of the ipod but maybe once you press the 'on' button, atleast I wouldn't have to swipe the little thing. Well at the very least anyway.
I'd also like a larger volumn control button
I would also LOVE to have a audio control option. If not on the side of the ipod but maybe once you press the 'on' button, atleast I wouldn't have to swipe the little thing. Well at the very least anyway.
I'd also like a larger volumn control button
Already available with PocketTouch. You might find it on your list of applications in Install, or see it here http://www.appleiphoneschool.com/2008/03/22/pockettouch-11/
Swipe up to increase volume
Swipe down to decrease volume
Swipe right for next track
Swipe left for previous track
Tap screen to pause/resume
I have no idea... *checking* ... Wow, I never knew that.Thank you!
No problem, it took me a while to figure that out too, but it is very useful.
That looks really cool but I can't find the source anywhere, I hope someone makes that for the app store when it comes online.
I just find it so amazing that so many of you are so adamantly against a built-in speaker on the iPT. I think you're really missing the point. The intent of adding an internal speaker is NOT to provide high quality sound. I think we can all agree that if you want to hear high quality sound from an iPT, then use earbuds, headphones, or connect it to an external speaker or amp--that seems to be a no-brainer.
But we're not looking for high quality sound here. We just want the ability to simply hear sound without the hassle of headphones or earbuds. Just about EVERY modern (and not-so-modern) PDA has some sort of speaker that is more capable than what's currently included. Why should the iPT be different? I really think it's because of the fact that the iPT has "iPod" in its name, so therefore it MUST immediately get relegated to a "device + earbuds" status.
Really, how many times have you wanted to simply show someone a small video clip or play a sound byte, but you decided against it because you either didn't have, or don't want to hassle with headphones or earbuds? And as applications become available, you can be sure that many will have sound that would be better played with a speaker more capable than what's currently included.
Some of us chose the iPT over the iPhone for cost reasons. (The cost of an iPhone is over 6 times that of an iPT, when considering the required 24-month service plan) yet how much would it cost Apple and the consumer to add a simple internal speaker? And no, it wouldn't be "always on". Obviously, a System Settings would let the user configure it. Come on, let's step out of the restrictive mold of an MP3 or Media player, and have a little vision.
Many users are seeing the iPT not as "just an iPod" but as SO MUCH more. I firmly believe that Apple has a HUGE opportunity to become the PDA/SmartPhone leader, snagging the title from Palm. With AppStore coming soon and the overall amazing design and implementation of the iPhone and iPT, it just seems that omitting something as basic as an internal speaker just because "it's an iPod" is really limiting and short-sighted.
But we're not looking for high quality sound here. We just want the ability to simply hear sound without the hassle of headphones or earbuds. Just about EVERY modern (and not-so-modern) PDA has some sort of speaker that is more capable than what's currently included. Why should the iPT be different? I really think it's because of the fact that the iPT has "iPod" in its name, so therefore it MUST immediately get relegated to a "device + earbuds" status.
Really, how many times have you wanted to simply show someone a small video clip or play a sound byte, but you decided against it because you either didn't have, or don't want to hassle with headphones or earbuds? And as applications become available, you can be sure that many will have sound that would be better played with a speaker more capable than what's currently included.
Some of us chose the iPT over the iPhone for cost reasons. (The cost of an iPhone is over 6 times that of an iPT, when considering the required 24-month service plan) yet how much would it cost Apple and the consumer to add a simple internal speaker? And no, it wouldn't be "always on". Obviously, a System Settings would let the user configure it. Come on, let's step out of the restrictive mold of an MP3 or Media player, and have a little vision.
Many users are seeing the iPT not as "just an iPod" but as SO MUCH more. I firmly believe that Apple has a HUGE opportunity to become the PDA/SmartPhone leader, snagging the title from Palm. With AppStore coming soon and the overall amazing design and implementation of the iPhone and iPT, it just seems that omitting something as basic as an internal speaker just because "it's an iPod" is really limiting and short-sighted.