I'm unhappy with the iPod Touch, here's why.

[Justin Horne]

I'm sure you may have seen my last post, all giddy about the new ipods. I was just leaving, so I saw the iPod touch Introduction, thought I had it figured out, and left, unknowing of the price or capacity.
There I was, in class, all ready to drop 600 on my 80 or 120 or (gasp!) 160 gb top end wide screen iPod!

Then, what do I see? Oh. My. God.
16 GB

Are you serious?! You FINALLY made the widescreen, BEAUTIFULLY displayed picture we've been asking for, and you crapped out and put 16 GB in therE?!
Great, that's like, 20 movies? Not bad, excluding my 40+ GB of MUSIC!

What the hell?

Well, I guess I'll be saving some money, buying the 160 gb iPod Classic.

I thouroughly enjoy that one too, but you know, I wanted multi touch and widescreen!

Oh well, I'm still VERY happy with the product refresh, just syaing that after years of begging on our parts, Apple's first stab into the widescreen video market comes with pathetic storage space.
The people who have been begging for this upgrade are also likely the "hardcore" users, who wanted GOBS of space.
I think we'll still be sticking with the classic now.

And, 40 HOURS of music playback in the 160 gb is freaking insane.

[hyphenpipe]

I'm with you on this one.

I headed straight to the Apple website and was all ready to order but as soon as I saw the 16GB capacity, I called to see if it was a misprint.

It wasn't.

I laughed at the lady on the phone.

16GB. I had that much in lost clusters before and didn't other to recover it.

[gravydrive]

I'll be a tad ticked if Apple doesn't ship Touch with a wired remote. Not a la iPhone, though, limiting the remote to Apple earphones was a dumb move. I'm hoping for something like the current remote/FM radio (this is assuming that the current does not work with Touch).

I'm in the same boat with you regarding capacity. I was reading the iLounge updates and saw "iPod Touch"and ... well, I crapped my pants. Then, as I refreshed I saw the 8/16GB capacities and my heart sunk. Don't get me wrong, I'll own one (having something that thin is just too enticing, along with web browsing and wide-screen movie moving), but I too hoped for a higher capacity.

[Surf Monkey]

No Touch for me. If it had had even 80 gig, I would have bought one. As it is, I'm sticking with the "Classic" 160 gig. There's really not even much of a choice for me since I already own an 8 gig iPhone. No reason to shell out that kind of scratch for a PMP with such a pathetic amount of storage when the Classic has a huge drive and a nice price. I don't really care about thinness.

[homeboy]

Apple has really torn us consumer this time. No product in the line up it perfect, except the Nano. As for the bigger ones it's either: lots of capacity or lots of features. I want sometime in between.

[jhollington]

The nano? I would say that the new nano is far from perfect, really.... The screen is too small to be practical for any realistic video playback, and the size and form factor are more awkward than the previous nano. Further, it hasn't had any realistic capacity increase -- merely a price drop.

[TM2-Megatron]

I'm in total agreement... and personally, I feel that Apple's really taken a wrong turn with this line-up. I mean, what's the point of having that great, widescreen for videos with those pathetic capacities?

At this point, the vast majority of those people who invest in the upper-end iPods wouldn't be able to fit a 10th of their music collection on 8GB... to say nothing of any videos they may have. Clearly, flash storage shouldn't yet be used for high-end iPod models if Apple can't even offer 32GB while keeping it affordable.

And even more dissapointing, the Touch seems to have the same limited bitrate tolerances that all other video-enabled iPods have had. They could've at least pushed the H.264/AVC max up to 2000 or 2500kbps.... if only to compensate for the VBR transcoding used by pretty much every program which seems to produce watchable videos. IMO, this aspect of the original 5/5.5G iPods was one that needed some work. I've only really found 2 or 3 programs (Nero Recode, Handbrake) that consistenly produce high-qualtiy H.264/AVC videos without constant audio-sync or video glitch problems. Unfortunately, though, you can't encode anywhere near 1500kbps for many videos with fast motion due to the VBR... I can't recall how many times I've had stuttering videos on my iPod due to this. At this point, I've given up having reasonably high-quality H.264 videos on my iPod at all.

Apple has become far too obsessed with making their products thinner and thinner. Personally, I'd rather not own something that feels like I could snap it like a twig, were I so inclined. IMO, the depth of the 80GB 5.5G is thin enough for something with its general dimensions. Any thinner borders on the ludicrous. I would've gladly accepted a little more depth to the Touch model in exchange for the use of the 80GB HDD used in the 5.5G. That capacity, at least, would've made it worth consideration. From the looks of this, I'll be sitting this generation of iPods out... unless Apple releases a HDD-based Touch model in another 6 months. Though I'm probably just going to start looking at alternative products to suit my needs.

[manders4001]

I don't know what to do. I have 38 GB of music and that collection is constantly growing. Obviously I can't listen to all of that at once, but I'm a completist and like to carry everything around with me. Up until a month ago my iPod Photo was working fine, so I hadn't already converted to putting videos on my iPod. I've been using a 2G 4GB iPod nano since then and was planning on making the switch. At first I was deadset on just getting higher capacity, but the iPod Touch is beautiful and more reliable with flash-based storage. I was thinking about ripping DVDs onto my computer, but I won't be able to fit any videos if I get the 16GB. But the YouTube feature means that most of the TV shows I watch will be on there, albeit illegally.
Should I just go w/ the disappointing in interface iPod classic in order to get the high-capacity or go w/ the disappointing in capacity iPod Touch and just uncheck over 1/2 of my music collection?

[homeboy]

I don't know what to do. I have 38 GB of music and that collection is constantly growing. Obviously I can't listen to all of that at once, but I'm a completist and like to carry everything around with me. Up until a month ago my iPod Photo was working fine, so I hadn't already converted to putting videos on my iPod. I've been using a 2G 4GB iPod nano since then and was planning on making the switch. At first I was deadset on just getting higher capacity, but the iPod Touch is beautiful and more reliable with flash-based storage. I was thinking about ripping DVDs onto my computer, but I won't be able to fit any videos if I get the 16GB. But the YouTube feature means that most of the TV shows I watch will be on there, albeit illegally.
Should I just go w/ the disappointing in interface iPod classic in order to get the high-capacity or go w/ the disappointing in capacity iPod Touch and just uncheck over 1/2 of my music collection?


I'm in the same seat as you. I will buy an iPod classic 80GB and buy a 32GB iPod touch when it comes out next year. There is no way I'm going to shell out 400 dollars for a 16GB device which doesn't satisfy you one hundred percent.

[Germansuplex]

The touch is not really dissapointing in my view, it just doesn't warrant a purchase from me. I'm sure they'll go hard disk based one day, but I am in agreement with the first post in that I was surprised Apple went with flash for the iPod that has been hyped for well over two years now.

[Paoii]

No Touch for me. If it had had even 80 gig, I would have bought one. As it is, I'm sticking with the "Classic" 160 gig. There's really not even much of a choice for me since I already own an 8 gig iPhone. No reason to shell out that kind of scratch for a PMP with such a pathetic amount of storage when the Classic has a huge drive and a nice price. I don't really care about thinness.

That really caught me. It's £159 for an 80gb classic or £199 for an 8gb touch... I realise that the touch has a lot better interface, but still...

Plus I'd go for the 16gb anyway, and that's like £260-270.

Shame, I really do like the Touch.

[Surf Monkey]

The Touch should have been and easily could have been just as revolutionary as iPhone only in different ways. It could have been a highly focused media player that took everyone in the industry out of the game. But Apple delivered what amounts to a neutered iPhone. They didn't even tweak the physical design much. It's practically indistinguishable from iPhone in most respects. That's lazy, disappointing and down right insulting if you ask me. Apple is capable of better, but coupled with the drastic iPhone price reduction it's clear to me that the money is more important than the innovation right now. That's a sad thing to have to say about a company that has never failed to inspire me for the last 18 years... until today.

[homeboy]

IMO Apple should have waited with Flash in the iPod touch until next year when they will be offering 16GB and 32GB flavors. In the mean time they should have offered hdd based iPod touch

[GianlucaM]

16GB totally sucks.
They should have canned the iPod Classic and put a hard drive in the iPod Touch.
A very stupid move in my opinion.

[AlphaRob]

For some people, this is going to be tough. From what I've seen, those people are very vocal. But here's my situation. I have two iPods, a 30GB Video and a 2GB Nano. If I had to, I could use the 2GB nano as my main iPod. How? Smart playlists. Just make a series of playlists of your 1000 most listened songs and you're good to go. 1,000 songs anywhere is really quite astonishing. We take what we have for granted. I have about 13GB of music, plus a good amount of videos, and for me, the 16GB is ideal, but I may even end up going with the 8GB. It wouldn't be a big deal for me at all really. Smart playlists are the feature in iTunes, seriously.

[KrNbOy503]

For some people, this is going to be tough. From what I've seen, those people are very vocal. But here's my situation. I have two iPods, a 30GB Video and a 2GB Nano. If I had to, I could use the 2GB nano as my main iPod. How? Smart playlists. Just make a series of playlists of your 1000 most listened songs and you're good to go. 1,000 songs anywhere is really quite astonishing. We take what we have for granted. I have about 13GB of music, plus a good amount of videos, and for me, the 16GB is ideal, but I may even end up going with the 8GB. It wouldn't be a big deal for me at all really. Smart playlists are the feature in iTunes, seriously.

I strongly agree with you.
I think the iPod Touch is an awesome product even with the 8/16GB space.
Who really needs 10000 songs on the go?
Again, make a smart playlists with your favorite songs and you're set!
I'll be pre-ordering the 8GB soon.
Thanks Apple!

[Justin Horne]

Honestly you guys?
I don't thik buying two iPods or forcing a limit upon yourself is a viable solution to a problem which shouldn't hav existed in the first place.
The smart playlist solution is reverting back to the statements by companies in 2002 trying to compete with the (5 gb) iPod, a la "You don't need all that space, just use our players and pick the music you like BEST!"

And, needless to say, we aren't all able, or willing, to buy two iPods to store all our music.

[~NeonFire372~]

Honestly you guys?
I don't thik buying two iPods or forcing a limit upon yourself is a viable solution to a problem which shouldn't hav existed in the first place.
The smart playlist solution is reverting back to the statements by companies in 2002 trying to compete with the (5 gb) iPod, a la "You don't need all that space, just use our players and pick the music you like BEST!"

And, needless to say, we aren't all able, or willing, to buy two iPods to store all our music.
Agreed. I'm going with the classic. No way am I spending all that money on the touch.

[iPod Dance]

I agree with thread starter, Justin about the "hardcore" iPod users.

As a power user, I have always bought the most expensive iPod for the capacity and battery life. I need my whole library with me, or it's a regression to CDs and tapes.

The Power Users will either:

***wait for a iPod touch with at least a 60gb capacity regardless of whether it's flash or HD

...or...

***buy a 160gb iPod Classic.

Either way means less money for Apple right now because the iPod touch is the most expensive, and obviously not buying an iPod doesn't help Apple.

Personally, I'll be waiting until the revisions before Xmas. By that time people will have added 3rd party apps to touch anyway.

[Justin Horne]

As a power user, I have always bought the most expensive iPod for the capacity and battery life. I need my whole library with me, or it's a regression to CDs and tapes.. .

buy a 160gb iPod Classic.


Sounds like you get me 100%.

I find it funny about the people in here suggesting playlists/cutting yourlibrary down to iPod size/etc.
I have over 40 playlists, and the whole POINT of iPod was to carry ALL your music with you.
Ignoring video/podcasts/etc, I could JUST fit a third of my music on the touch. Blah... Very blah, Apple. This is ignoring my 120+ movies that I own, and was looking forward to having with my at all times...


As for ordering a 160 GB classic?
My black one is in the mail... :)

[Feds]

I was going to sell my 80gb and buy a touch. Today at school I found a person who would buy it for $275!! Then I get home expecting a 100GB+ iPod Multi-Touch for maybe $400. I get home and head strait to the Apple website and what do I see????? iPod Touch 16gb for $400!! ARE YOU FRICKEN JOKING ME!! No touch for me...Ill wait till Apple smartens up and puts a real man's storage in the touch...A 160 HDD like in the Classic!! Then Ill buy it. Now I think the Nano is looking pretty sweet.

[Justin Horne]

I was going to sell my 80gb and buy a touch. Today at school I found a person who would buy it for $275!! Then I get home expecting a 100GB+ iPod Multi-Touch for maybe $400. I get home and head strait to the Apple website and what do I see????? iPod Touch 16gb for $400!! ARE YOU FRICKEN JOKING ME!! No touch for me...Ill wait till Apple smartens up and puts a real man's storage in the touch...A 160 HDD like in the Classic!! Then Ill buy it. Now I think the Nano is looking pretty sweet.
You better sell that 80gb of your before your buyer turns on the internet......

[sean2068]

Damn! I can't believe how many people feel exactly the same as me :o

I've just come off gizmodo where everyone is saying the same thing as you dudes.

Big screen for playing movies, but not a HD big enough to store movies, but you can go on the internet.... in starbucks..... i dont go to friggin starbucks!

I, like many of you had my credit card ready to fork out some serious cash for a top of the line 80GB, 120GB iPod Touch : /

Very dissapointed. Not sure what to do now.

Think ill try and get my 1st Gen 10GB repaired until Apple sorts their #### out. Can't believe I waited 6 years for this update :mad:

I luv my 1st Gen, it's white dont you know. :D And it plays more bloody music than the lowend touch cobblers. (when i get the HD back inside its case lol)

[Justin Horne]

Well, to be fair, it DOES go online outside of Starbucks. Any place with wifi that is open is good enough for it. Just at Starbucks, it offers special features to download the song they were playing in the store...

That said, as for what to do? I say go buy a Classic. They're very good looking devices, and I think it's time to retire the first gen...:)
Besides, whether we're all satisfied with it or not, this is the lineup that will stay for quite some time.
The only possible exception would be if Apple hears the outcry and HD-es the Touch. Honestly though, I don't expect it. Even if they do, it STILL suffers from the same flaws we talked about pre launch (requires you to look at it, etc).

Oh well, they made an iPod that makes me happy...
That said, from polls on this board, I think the touch will outsell the classic... Oh well, good for Apple. I guess.

[iPod Dance]

If you sold your 80gb iPod, then you don't have an iPod for a day or two! And that, would be worse than death.

Justin, I tend to hope that Apple will have the device we all seem to want by Christmas. They ALWAYS have new revisions before the holidays.

By the way, us fanboys need a name for the device we want.
Possible nickname:

ThickTouch

[paranoidxe]

For some people, this is going to be tough. From what I've seen, those people are very vocal. But here's my situation. I have two iPods, a 30GB Video and a 2GB Nano. If I had to, I could use the 2GB nano as my main iPod. How? Smart playlists. Just make a series of playlists of your 1000 most listened songs and you're good to go. 1,000 songs anywhere is really quite astonishing. We take what we have for granted. I have about 13GB of music, plus a good amount of videos, and for me, the 16GB is ideal, but I may even end up going with the 8GB. It wouldn't be a big deal for me at all really. Smart playlists are the feature in iTunes, seriously.

I agree, if a person is efficient enough 16GB is plenty, but some people (like me and my video iPod) prefer to have EVERYTHING with them at all times. Sure you could use smart playlist feature IF and ONLY IF you use iTunes regularly or you have your iPod set to auto sync.

[Justin Horne]

If you sold your 80gb iPod, then you don't have an iPod for a day or two! And that, would be worse than death.

Justin, I tend to hope that Apple will have the device we all seem to want by Christmas. They ALWAYS have new revisions before the holidays.

By the way, us fanboys need a name for the device we want.
Possible nickname:

ThickTouch
Well, I honestly wish you (us) good luck, but count me out... I've been waiting since 5.5, I'm happy. :)

[ipodave]

Jhollington and GianlucaM: I agree with your individual assessments of Apple's latest ipod offerings.
I think that the new ipod nano just looks too short. With a wide screen sitting right above a relatively small click wheel, it would look less awkward with another 1-2 mm between the screen and the click wheel.
ipod classic? Even with the enormous storage capacity and the "new metal body", this model looks immediately outdated. It seems that Apple didn't heed the comments left by people over the last 2 YEARS in forums like this one, expressing disappointment in the size of the screen. Boring....
ipod touch? If I have 30gb on my 5g, why would I want to go down to 8gb or 16gb on something which a) looks like a hack job from the iphone, b) doesn't allow you to play games on it and c) creates confusion with the iphone, now that the iphone's price has been reduced to $399.
Apple, thin is in but even being too thin isn't good for your health ;).
Just give us a widescreen ipod that we can play games on, even if it has to rely on a hard drive and be a bit thicker. I'd even be willing to settle for smaller storage capacity choices, like 50gb or 100gb!

[BlackHawk47]

Well, I believe smart playlists work with my 60GB media... but...

Does Apple really make divisions based on the holiday seasons? If so, how do they do this? I don't ever remember having them make revisions months after it.

[S2_Mac]

Um..what in the world are you folks going on about? ...the whole POINT of iPod was to carry ALL your music with you. Sez who? What about the folks who have an ipod for nothing more than a few audiobooks (yes, gasp -- they listen to a book and then delete it); or the folks who just want to watch a viddy on their train commute? Or the tweens who are constantly switching band-allegiance and replace their Nano content every couple of days for the sole purpose of hearing today's fave-15 songs....

The iPod is a fashion statement; it's a visible sign of family income; it's a chance to pretend you're cool; it's an alternative to a 12-disc car changer or a 300-disc home carousel; it's a voice memo recorder; it's an on-stage device just like a tape deck or CD player; it's a box that acts as an audio-visual tour guide; it's an 8-track player for the baby's naptime; it's porn-in-a-pocket; it's an alarm clock; it's a diversion, a cute toy, a keeper-up with the Joneses, a lark, a must-have bit of personal gear....and yes, it's good for carrying everything you've got everywhere you go.

To badly borrow from the Bard, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your iPod philosophy." Of the 30 or so iPod owners I know, only 3 or 4 are alike in how they use their iPods/what they use iPods for. That's what they love about Apple's approach to the Personal Media device market; like the Personal Computer, it's a single box that manages to serve many, many purposes.

All in all, seems like this should be a joyous day....the "Video" line got huge boosts in capacity and a price drop; the Nano line got a form factor redesign, a bigger screen and doubled memory (and a price drop, I think); and the Touch line was unveiled. About the only folks who should be claiming bummed-out status are those who got stiffed for $200 on their introductory iPhones....

[jhollington]

All very good points, S2_Mac, and I really do believe that this line does have something for almost everybody.

The only thing that's really missing is a higher-capacity iPod touch, since it is a device focused on video playback, and 16GB is still a little bit tight in that regard. That's the one piece of the market that presently seems to be missed with the new lineup.... Those who would travel and want to take a lot of video to go.

Beyond that, the lineup provides more versatility than it previously did. I may not personally be a fan of all of the options, but the reality is that anybody looking for an iPod will likely be able to find a reasonably good fit in one of the four possible options, which is a broader selection than what existed two days ago.

[manders4001]

About the smart playlist solution, I prefer to have full albums with me, and having my top 4,000 most played songs probably wouldn't fulfill that desire. Call me a completist, but I like to carry all of my music with me.

The iPod Touch capacity does work for some, though. While I was incredibly disappointed solely because of the storage thing, 2 friends saw it and their jaws dropped. They don't even care. I think the people who are disatisfied are just more vocal online. We'll see what the sales show. My prediction:

iPhone sales will skyrocket w/ the huge pricedrop
iPod Touch sales will be larger than that of the iPod classic b/c the people who buy the Touch are either satisfied w/ the capacity and/or the iPod classic sales will be small by comparison b/c it's so similiar to the 5G iPod.

[marinelayer]

Apple had some tough decisions to make when putting the Touch on the roadmap. They knew there'd be some power users that wanted a full strength PMP with a big hard drive. Others wanted a phoneless iPhone. Some wanted both. The problem is timing. As quickly as NAND flash prices fell, mini hard drive prices fell too. Some analysts projected that flash would be $9/GB in 2009. We've reached that point 18 months early. But hard drives still hold their own, now at roughly $1-2/GB. It was thought that price convergence would occur in 2009, but that seems less likely as hard drives continue to drop. Simple physics could force hard drives to bottom out at some point. Flash would still need to be price competitive for it to fully replace hard drives despite flash's inherent advantages.

So keep that in mind when projecting how the Touch and iPhone would evolve over time. Let's say they put large hard drives in the two Touch models, 80 and 160 GB. For a year they could keep the same capacities just as they have in previous iPod generations but they would be expected to upgrade at some point. When would that occur - next year, 2009, 2010? In the meantime, Apple would have to deal with complaints about poor battery life (and replacement batteries) from a WiFi/hard drive Touch. Take a look at the Archos 605: it claims 17 hours audio and 5 hours video. It's also 2.5 ounces heavier, 0.5" inches thicker, and has a 1" bigger screen to boot. If a hard drive were in the Touch instead of flash in a regular iPod-sized package, it's possible that battery life would be only 14 hours audio/3 video or something like that.

Personally, I wanted a hard drive-based Touch coming into this week. However the more I crunched the numbers the more I knew it couldn't practically work. Well, it would've if Apple created a separate "power user" Touch with a hard drive instead of flash to go along with the two models already announced. Unfortunately, that's not how Apple operates. If it was they would've made other such products, like a true desktop replacement MacBook Pro. My only iPod remains a 4G monochrome 20 GB and I haven't had the urge to replace it until I heard there might be something like the Touch. I'm getting the 16 GB as soon as it's out despite its imperfect feature set. I have a TB of movies/shows and 250 GB of music. As inconvenient as it might be to plan how I use the Touch, I'm sure I'll get over it quickly with the new capabilities.

[sean2068]

Yep more valid points from everyone. That archos thing doesn't look all that bad and is kinda the feature list i was expecting from Apple. Still I live in the UK and WiFi isn't exactly abundent... and kind of illegal if ur connecting to a residential adsl.

GPRS for personal navigation would have been much better i think. U could use it everywhere and all those people that use their iPods in their car would have a wicked replacment for their tomtom. Everytime a new direction comes up ur music would automatically quietn for a second. Plus it would also be a great personal GPRS device for finding ur way to that really hard to find music shop down the backstreets.

iPod is primarily a music/media player isn't it? iPhone a communcation device? So let the iPhone deal with communication and iPod with media. mmkay?

Plus getting rid of the white? :shake: Personally id go for black without thinking, but white IS the iPod. It's like that time Heinz released the green tomatoe ketchup... tasted the same but goes to show change isn't always a good thing.

imo: No iPod Classic, no iPod touch, just 1 large capacity iPod with touch capabilities. Simple. With this new lineup their is no high end iPod. Classic has the capacity of high end and the touch has the features of the high end. 50/50. Like an ugly sportscar or a supermini with a lambo engine. Im Mr Analagy today :D

Stop ranting about SmartPlaylists btw. If you know exactly what you want to listen to and when you want to listen to it throughout the day then good for you, personally I might want to listen to a song I havent heared in 10 years, or something random from a soundtrack etc In other words, i need all my songs with me. I dont want to settle for whats available, if i had that phylosiphy id just listen to the radio.

'All your songs in your pocket' wasnt that the original iPod slogan? or something similar. Shouldnt the new slogan be 'All your movies in your pocket' ? Not with 16gb of storage thats for sure.

No high end player = ###

PS. I know my spelling sux :p

[Tim3167]

The Smart Playlist idea really depends on how you listen to your music. I have about 60gb worth of music but almost exclusively listen to it through a series of smart playlists which randomly samples my entire library for my desired mix based on ratings, last played, and date added. I rarely will out of the blue want to listen to a specific track.

I was originally very disapointed with the 16gb capacity on the touch but have been playing with creating "pool" smart playlists to pull from and I think I can get my walking around sample to like 8GB.

The interface and web browsing is just so cool that I think I've switched my thinking and will be making the plunge for the Touch. I do think I'm moving to a 2 IPod solution though as I still will use my 80GB when I do want my entire library on longer trips and such.

I do think that someone made a point that if valid is very key. The speed and technology on the Touch may not lend itself to HD based players....but it is so sexy.....

[KrNbOy503]

The Smart Playlist idea really depends on how you listen to your music. I have about 60gb worth of music but almost exclusively listen to it through a series of smart playlists which randomly samples my entire library for my desired mix based on ratings, last played, and date added. I rarely will out of the blue want to listen to a specific track.

I was originally very disapointed with the 16gb capacity on the touch but have been playing with creating "pool" smart playlists to pull from and I think I can get my walking around sample to like 8GB.

The interface and web browsing is just so cool that I think I've switched my thinking and will be making the plunge for the Touch. I do think I'm moving to a 2 IPod solution though as I still will use my 80GB when I do want my entire library on longer trips and such.

I do think that someone made a point that if valid is very key. The speed and technology on the Touch may not lend itself to HD based players....but it is so sexy.....
I agree 100%.
I ordered my 16gb touch yesterday afternoon.
It arrives on my B-day next month! :)

[fleshx]

Smart playlist assume all of your music exists on your machine, I personally cannot hold my entire music catalog and basically add music from backups on a whim. 16g is less than my old 30g and thus for now I'm thinking I'll wait until the next revision of the iPod touch.

I hate the fact we as consumers have to decide between bigger capacity with older look/feel or less capacity with slick new UI...that in the end is what sux!

[redbridgeroad]

I too was heartbroken when I read 16gb was the capacity... since it runs OSX though, is it possible for them to create like a mini external hard drive for extra storage space for music?

The iPod Touch will be hard for me to resist either way... I'm an original owner of a mint condition fully working 40gb 3rd Gen iPod and have not purchased an iPod since. I was never a fan of the 4th or 5th Generation iPods because of the click wheel, and the iPod touch is the upgrade I've been waiting 4 years for, but is it really an upgrade if I'm going from 40gigs to 16?

[VulnoX]

I am sticking with my iPod touch I think. I was on the wall, and was about to pull the trigger on the new Archos 605 (30, 80, or 160GB for less than the Touch). It also has a 4.3 inch touch screen, opera browser with full flash support, and a crap ton more.

Still, quite tempting.

But also not nearly as good looking, small, or I am sure easy to use as the Touch.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I only use 4.5GB for my music on my 5th gen. I have 20 videos as well ranging from and hour and a half to two hours, and I STILL have 9GB free on my 30GB (really 27.7). at least 15-18 of those videos just need to be deleted too.

I don't know how people get 30+GB music collections or why they need every movie, but I think the Touch will work for me, my main concern has been getting a bigger screen, not more capacity.

Can you use a remote with this thing? Not being able to would be the deal breaker for me. I could not stand having to unlock the screen and everything and actually look at the iPod to change songs.

[Cold Irons]

I'm still agonizing. Was disappointed with the touch's capacity, but like the Wi-Fi and screen.....

Currently using a 4G 60Gb, my iTunes library is around 67Gb right now, so I can't fit all my music on my current 4G - also have to do the "slap fix" occasionally to revive it after locking up - so I really need a new one. Assumed/assume I'll do the 160Gb classic, but I'm still debating.

My problem is that I really, really like having my whole music library with me. Have always had a sizable music collection (500 unused LPs, 1300 CDs-at this point) and I have always liked the ability to pull up specific songs/memories at any time. If I remember a 1930's Robert Johnson blues - got it; if I need a quick Duke Ellington fix - got it; if my wife says "...got that XXX song from '75 stuck in my head.." - got it. That has always been one of the major attractions of an iPod (for me).

I do listen to shuffle/playlists/etc. (actually quite often), but have always wanted to be able to call up specific, sometimes off-the-wall, songs.

So....as I still debate in my mind, I think the 160Gb is the way to go for now - realizing that a year from now, the new 80Gb iPod Touch may be in my hands....

[suedehead77]

With wi-fi, you store things on the web, not on your pod. Upload your photos and docs to .mac, or your ISP's web hosting service.

[Surf Monkey]

With wi-fi, you store things on the web, not on your pod. Upload your photos and docs to .mac, or your ISP's web hosting service.


You could do that but it's not the standard as you suggest. Most Wi-Fi devices aren't fast enough to offer seamless streaming or instantaneous downloads. Online storage solutions are limited and you'll end up paying a monthly fee to use 100+ gigs of disc space. Realistically, the best way to deal with large media libraries right now is to store them on a hard drive. Wi-Fi doesn't change that.

[viccles]

I must be different to most people but I hardly ever have the urge to listen to some music once I've 'worn it out'. Therefore I only carry the music that I'm liking at the moment and would most likely to listen to. I think 8GB or 16GB would be enough for that?

[VulnoX]

I must be different to most people but I hardly ever have the urge to listen to some music once I've 'worn it out'. Therefore I only carry the music that I'm liking at the moment and would most likely to listen to. I think 8GB or 16GB would be enough for that?

I am just like you it sounds like. I have a good 8 gigs maybe of a collection at home. 4.5 of which I keep on my iPod, and of that, I made a playlist called NOW! that have just the songs I have not worn myself out on. That is maybe 120-150 songs.

Still a good variety, and would fit on 16 gigs with a good 14.5 gigs to spare.

I can also put all 1400 of my songs from my iPod 5G onto my new Touch with at least 11 gigs to spare.

I would just love to see the play count on some peoples song collections that are 50+ gigs.

[suedehead77]

My experience with my 60 Gig 4G is that I only used 15 gig for music, and that was my whole 'favorites' collection. 60 gig was a complete waste of money and space.

After one year the hard drive quit and its now a 60 gig paperweight. Dead.

I wanted the flash drive of the Nano because its rock solid. I'd rather have 16 gig that actually works than 120 gig paperweight.

I am just like you it sounds like. I have a good 8 gigs maybe of a collection at home. 4.5 of which I keep on my iPod, and of that, I made a playlist called NOW! that have just the songs I have not worn myself out on. That is maybe 120-150 songs.

Still a good variety, and would fit on 16 gigs with a good 14.5 gigs to spare.

I can also put all 1400 of my songs from my iPod 5G onto my new Touch with at least 11 gigs to spare.

I would just love to see the play count on some peoples song collections that are 50+ gigs.

[Surf Monkey]

My experience with my 60 Gig 4G is that I only used 15 gig for music, and that was my whole 'favorites' collection. 60 gig was a complete waste of money and space.

After one year the hard drive quit and its now a 60 gig paperweight. Dead.

I wanted the flash drive of the Nano because its rock solid. I'd rather have 16 gig that actually works than 120 gig paperweight.


It would be nice if you'd stop posting the EXACT SAME MESSAGE in different threads. It's annoying.

[jeremy3721]

Well I ordered the 16 GB touch, I just have to have one after playing with an iPhone last week. My biggest fear is that less than 6 months from now Apple will either offer a 32 GB model (which is probably perfect for me) or they will offer a version with a HD with even more storage.

Maybe Apple will see all of the complaints and go ahead and double the storage on both models. (wishfull thinking)

[ragingSPAM]

i think apple did the lower capacities intentionally...you gotta consider these factors, apple's manufacturing costs, parts costs, R&D costs, and profit margins...lets say he came out with a 80 gb ipod touch it would be much larger, they would get rid of the "classic" and it would probably cost $600 considering how much the multi touch system costs compared to just your now conventional click wheel....

and same thing with the nano, they gave it almost all of the capabilities as the video and further reduced prices on it because the 2gb nano used to be $149 and now the 4gb VIDEO nano is $149 and further the 8GB is now just $199 instead of $249...albeit they didnt increase capacity but they reduced price...they didnt want to impede on the other ipods market so they made something almost everyone in different price brackets could afford

[Gunner]

I think that Apple is making a bold statement with the iPod touch. Basically they are refusing to compromise on the product design (dimensions, battery life, etc) to offer more storage.

It's as simple as that. Apple are not idiots, they know that many who shell out $400 for a 16GB iPod Touch will run out and shell out another $400 next year when the 32GB iPod Touch comes out. And another $400 the year after that when the 64GB iPod Touch that has a redesign, smaller dimensions, GPS, etc, comes out. In a way they are stating that hard drives are on the way out. They won't compromise their most sophisticated product by putting in a hard drive prone to mechanical failure.

Other competitors can't even keep up with them, the software/interface on the iphone/touch is something pretty revolutionary.... and Apple knows this, and knows they can charge a premium for it.

And for those who simply can't pare down their massive playlists and scads of video they want with them all the time, well, there's the iPod Classic which is a freaking steal at $349 for 160GB.

If you are a packrat who must carry every piece of media you own with you all the time, buy the classic. Just make sure you have a backup since hard drives break... a lot.

If you can manage your media then the 16GB Touch is no slouch. Look at it this way;

2000 songs = 10GB
2 audiobooks = 1GB
2 full length movies = 3GB
and you still have enough storage left over to handle some podcasts, music videos and TV shows.

And (also importantly) you still get great battery life with that monster screen. 24 hours of audio or 5 hrs of video.

[Surf Monkey]

I think that Apple is making a bold statement with the iPod touch. Basically they are refusing to compromise on the product design (dimensions, battery life, etc) to offer more storage.


That's utter and complete hogwash! Apple didn't compromise when they built the communication centric iPhone. But when they made the iPod Touch, they did NOTHING but compromise. All iPod Touch is is an iPhone with the core functions ripped out. How is that innovative? How is that uncompromising? Answer: it isn't. It's lazy. Apple took the easy way out with the Touch and that, as much as the small storage capacity, is why so many people find it disappointing.

[Surf Monkey]

If you are a packrat who must carry every piece of media you own with you all the time, buy the classic. Just make sure you have a backup since hard drives break... a lot.


Gotta revisit this post because of this section.

Do you have any idea how insulting it is to call those of us who see compelling reasons to cary our libraries on our iPods "pack-rats"? It's a mischaracterization and pretty rude IMO.

[ragingSPAM]

but if you listen to steve jobs in his keynote he specifically states that he made what people wanted...and that is exactly what people wanted (if you read the forums and rumors and wants on the web)...an ipod with touch sensitive functions without the phone...

indeed it was cheaper until the price drop of the iphone but the storage space is double that for the same price...plus you can buy an iphone but if you already have another phone like lets say a treo or blackberry you might not wanna shell out another $600 (old price) for another phone which you need to activate by getting another contract (if you dont have AT&T already) so they made an ipod with similar functions MORE people could afford rather than the old $500 or $600 iphone...

[Justin Horne]

If you can manage your media then the 16GB Touch is no slouch. Look at it this way;

2000 songs = 10GB
2 audiobooks = 1GB
2 full length movies = 3GB
and you still have enough storage left over to handle some podcasts, music videos and TV shows.
Gah, that's not true, yet people keep repeating it!

Regardless of what you say, some of us just have MORE than you do. Even if I cut my music down to my top 25% I STILL wouldn't have room for more than 1 or two movies!
That's not acceptable.

But if you listen to steve jobs in his keynote he specifically states that he made what people wanted...and that is exactly what people wanted (if you read the forums and rumors and wants on the web)...an ipod with touch sensitive functions without the phone...

That's true for the last few months, but totally ignoring those of us who have been begging for a widescreen iPod since the 5G was 1 month old.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Touch WILL be a success.
That said, the people who pushed so hard to get something like it are also the ones who probbaly won't be buying it, as it lost mostly all of it's appeal to us.
Consider that the people who REALLY wanted widescreen video probably have quite a bit of it. On top of whatever music collection you, combined with podcasts, etc, you can clearly see that we need a certain reasonable amount of space.
Say what you will, 16GB is unaccptable to the majority of the poeple who wanted a device like this in the first place.

Instead, they gave us a device with a beautiful interface and screen, and the ability to do pretty much exactly what we wanted, and then killed it in the eyes of power users by crippling it with a pathetic amount of storage.

[dbdynsty25]

Gotta revisit this post because of this section.

Do you have any idea how insulting it is to call those of us who see compelling reasons to cary our libraries on our iPods "pack-rats"? It's a mischaracterization and pretty rude IMO.

Oh geeze...lighten the F up. He clearly wasn't using it as a derogatory term. It was a simple way of describing people that like to keep all of their music with them on one DAP. Sheesh.

[Freud]

Can't wait for my 16g touch to arrive. It will be perfect for my use and is exactly what I was hoping for.

[BlackHawk47]

Yeh, I personally dislike every iPod line as of now.

[ragingSPAM]

i also agree with u justin but i think the low storage was to keep costs down so more people could afford it...because if it did have either an hdd or multiple flash chips it would be more expensive and outside of the reach of more people

[Gunner]

Gah, that's not true, yet people keep repeating it!

Regardless of what you say, some of us just have MORE than you do. Even if I cut my music down to my top 25% I STILL wouldn't have room for more than 1 or two movies!
That's not acceptable.


Come on now. I have a 1 TB RAID in my basement and have hundreds of gigs of media. So lets not go there, shall we? The fact is that I've gotten past the stage of wanting to have all of my stuff with me all of the time.

I can accept that some people MUST have everything with them. If I was on multi-week business trips with no network access, etc, then I would probably need this too.


That's true for the last few months, but totally ignoring those of us who have been begging for a widescreen iPod since the 5G was 1 month old.


You've been begging? Geez. I read Engadget/Gizmodo every day and know all the rumors well in advance, and I am certainly not begging. It's a gadget. I'm not going to die if I don't get it exactly the way I want it. It seems kind of selfish for people to expect Apple to stake their financial success on what a small number of people want.

What if they did release the 120GB widescreen ipod touch and it was $1000 would you still run out and get it? Flash memory isn't cheap and for whatever reason they did NOT want a HD on this unit.

Apple's not here to make a device that satisfies every fan boy. They are here to make money. And they're going to make a butt load on the touch.


That said, the people who pushed so hard to get something like it are also the ones who probbaly won't be buying it, as it lost mostly all of it's appeal to us.
Consider that the people who REALLY wanted widescreen video probably have quite a bit of it. On top of whatever music collection you, combined with podcasts, etc, you can clearly see that we need a certain reasonable amount of space.
Say what you will, 16GB is unaccptable to the majority of the poeple who wanted a device like this in the first place.

I think you can store quite a bit of video on 16GB and there's of course the ability to stream stuff down off of Youtube, etc. Majority of people? I suppose that those with 100GB+ audio/video collections who are going to feel let down if they can't take it all with them all the time are going to be let down in any event. What if they said it was 32GB? There'd still be people in here complaining.

Instead, they gave us a device with a beautiful interface and screen, and the ability to do pretty much exactly what we wanted, and then killed it in the eyes of power users by crippling it with a pathetic amount of storage.

I think a lot of power users know how to manage their stuff, and are home at their home computer every week or so which will allow them to change what stuff is sync'd up, etc. It's a compromise, yes, but I'm sure it's one many will make to get the new capabilities.

[Gunner]

Gah, that's not true, yet people keep repeating it!

Regardless of what you say, some of us just have MORE than you do. Even if I cut my music down to my top 25% I STILL wouldn't have room for more than 1 or two movies!
That's not acceptable.

OK, correction. That's not accepteable to you. Plenty of people will manage, you're just not one of them.

Personally it's not like I need to carry 20 movies around with me just on the whim that I might want to pop one up because I'm bored. If that's you, then get the iPod Classic. I will typically have access to a PC/network every day or two so if I finish watching a TV show or movie I will just change it out at my PC. Even if making a cross country flight I'm only likely to watch one movie on the way there and one back. That's two movies.

As far as who has more media, lets not go there. I have a 1TB RAID 5 Linux system sitting in my basement with hundreds of gigabytes of media on it. In that situation you have to figure out what's important to you to carry around because it's simply impossible to carry it all around on a portable device.



That's true for the last few months, but totally ignoring those of us who have been begging for a widescreen iPod since the 5G was 1 month old.

Well, beggers can't be choosers can they? Seriously. Apple is NOT going to make a hard drive based touch, that much is obvious. The only thing that's going to change that is if demand for the touch is pathetic, which I don't expect.

Touch is their new flagship and they want it small, sexy and with good battery life. If anything I would expect the Touch to keep the same sized screen but SHRINK as time goes on. Shave an inch off the top and bottom, make it even thinner and cram 32GB in.. That will sell even better.

I read engadget/gizmodo every day too, and knew about all of the rumors. When I saw that they were going to do the Sept 5th launch I fully expected lower capacity touch screen ipods. What I did not expect was the generous price on the classic. 160GB for $349 is the real victory for people like yourself who want to take everything with them everywhere they go.

In all fairness I was anticipating a 32GB iPod Touch for $449, but hey, that's probably coming in six months anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Touch WILL be a success

Yep, probably a big one too.


That said, the people who pushed so hard to get something like it are also the ones who probbaly won't be buying it, as it lost mostly all of it's appeal to us.

Ah, this is where you are mistaken. The people with REALLY huge media collections like me have been forced to make compromises for years. I simply can't take all my stuff around, it's impossible. So I have to pick what to take. Once you start looking at what you actually listen to, it's really not that tough to pare it down. And as for video, as I said, there are options there too.

Even if you are a full length album fan, you could fit 500 full length albums on the touch and still have PLENTY of space left over for photos and videos.

If that doesn't cut it for you, then have hope... larger capacities are coming, just not likely this year.

[yacoub]

As much as I dislike the limited capacity, walking into the Apple store earlier today sold me completely on waiting for the Touch to arrive and not getting a classic. I've never really liked the iPod wheel interface and playing with a Classic today and then playing with the iPhone made it immediately clear to me that I want a media player with the iPhone type of interface and control scheme. The sacrifice is two-fold: Price and capacity. I'm not happy about that, but I can make due with 16GB for the sake of having the media player I really like.

[Surf Monkey]

The point here us that iPod Touch isn't an innovation as many claim. It's a stripped down iPhone. It's a device that's missing the core functions that iPhone was designed and that's why it's absurd to say that it's revolutionary. It isn't. It could have been but it isn't.

[jhollington]

While I agree with your point, the iPod touch interface is about as revolutionary as the iPhone (take that statement whichever way you like ;) ).

For people who looked at the iPhone and immediately wanted the iPod interface (but couldn't care less about the phone), it's going to be an ideal solution. If Apple had released both the iPhone and iPod touch as the same time, it might be fair to call it revolutionary in that sense of the word, but you're right that it seems more stale now that the iPhone has been out for two months.

So while the iPod touch is a disappointment in the "Apple-could-have-done-better" category, it doesn't necessarily take away from the fact that it's a "must-have" device for a lot of people who grudgingly passed on the iPhone because of the extra shackles that came with it.

[Gunner]

The point here us that iPod Touch isn't an innovation as many claim. It's a stripped down iPhone. It's a device that's missing the core functions that iPhone was designed and that's why it's absurd to say that it's revolutionary. It isn't. It could have been but it isn't.

It's revolutionary in the sense that now you don't have to get a phone/contract to enjoy the powerful media capabilities of the new ipod interface.

Personally, I have a phone assigned by my company that I have to use. Carrying another phone around would be stupid for me. Additionally 8GB was a pretty big compromise on storage space. 16GB is still a compromise to a lot of people but is obviously a step in the right direction.

I expect we'll see 32GB by this time next year for the same $399 that the 16GB costs now.

[mini_me2]

"Decisions, decisions. Who needs ’em? Why should you have to choose what to put on your iPod? With up to 160GB of storage, iPod classic lets you carry everything in your collection."

^^^ Apple's own description of the iPod classic :P Just thought I'd throw that out there...

Anyway, I'm very excited about the Touch. Coming from the 4GB, first generation iPod mini that I'm currently using, it should be a MAJOR improvement!

[SilverBlade]

I agree with a lot of posters here...

The iPod Touch needs more capacity. I would much rather carry around a thicker player then to skimp out on capacity. I really wanted a 'phone-less iPhone', but what they offer is a total let down. Beautiful touch screen in the widescreen format and only 16 gigs for more money then a 160 gig iPod Classic? They must be on crack for doing that. Looks like I'll be waiting until a hard drive based iPod-Touch comes out with comparable storage to the other ipods and at comparable prices, until then, I'm keeping my 2nd gen Nano.

[Surf Monkey]

I'm not sure that we'll ever see an HDD based iPod Touch. It looks to me like Apple intends to transition to NAND flash for all its iPods. I assume that the Classic will stay at 160 gig until the other devices can reach that level with flash memory, at which point it'll be discontinued.

[jhollington]

I agree, and this logic also seems to provide another valid explanation as to why Apple is not pushing bitrates and formats too high for video content.

Right now 640x480 content fits comfortably even on a 16GB iPod touch for the average user who syncs on a regular basis. There are power-users who can certainly use more video storage, but most users can get by with a 16GB device, even for video. The power users end up going with the classic and living with the smaller screen and/or TV output feature (in my case, I frequently hook up my 80GB 5G to a TV when I'm traveling, and plan to do the same with my classic, so screen size is irrelevant).

Pushing bit-rates up to HDTV levels would significantly increase storage requirements -- something that Apple is obviously not prepared to handle if they're going to start pushing flash-based devices.

While HD content would obviously be less relevant on a portable device, it would be very nice to have it available for the Apple TV, particularly now that they're selling modern content that is in competition with HDTV versions of that content on broadcast stations. The reality, however, is that Apple is going to try and avoid providing any content on their iTunes Store that is not compatible with a majority of the devices out there, and certainly doesn't want to have to start splitting into two versions of content if they can at all avoid it.

160GB may very well be where it stops for the next little while. Maybe a small "refresh" (ala 5.5G) pushing the classic up to 200GB down the road, but I have a feeling that the iPod classic (or 6G if you will) is a transitional step in the lineup...

[Gunner]

I agree 100% with the above.

The real question is, will Apple's push towards flash only devices, several years ahead of when the personal computer world starts to make this transition, come back and bite them?

[orimental]

Apple would never put a HDD in the touch because of how it's supposed to be used. The accelerometer and widescreen mean that it's meant to be flipped around every which way, so putting HDD wouldn't be feasible. So the lack of a HDD isn't about keeping it thin. It's about letting you turn the thing around all the time without damaging the data inside.

Until flash memory comes down in price a whole lot, you're going to be waiting a long time for a 64GB-128GB iPod touch. Samsung says (http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/25/ssd-prices-in-freefall-wont-overtake-hard-disks-anytime-soon/) that flash memory is hovering around $7.50/GB right now. That's about $480 for the 64GB and $960 for the 128GB, minimum. And that's just for the memory alone! Adding in the Apple tech/premium, you'd be looking at (least) $699 for a 64GB iPod touch and $1199 for a 128GB iPod touch.* Hmmm... Maybe that 8GB and 16GB isn't so bad after all.

*$300 for 8GB and $400 for 16GB. We can gather that Apple basically charges $100 for 8GB of flash memory. Not so bad considering many 4GB compact flash cards cost $55+ So $200 for the Apple tech/premium.

[Surf Monkey]

It depends on how quickly flash memory becomes
commoditized and how much the price drops. If it comes down quickly, Apple will have done the right thing. If it happens more slowly than they expect, they may appear to have made a mistake. I'd say that NAND flash needs to be cheap enough to put about 120 gig worth of it into an iPod or iPhone at today's price point in about 18 months. That's faster than most people are predicting but as one of the world's largest consumers of NAND flash modules, Apple probably knows a lot more about it than we do.

[Gunner]

It depends on how quickly flash memory becomes
commoditized and how much the price drops. If it comes down quickly, Apple will have done the right thing. If it happens more slowly than they expect, they may appear to have made a mistake. I'd say that NAND flash needs to be cheap enough to put about 120 gig worth of it into an iPod or iPhone at today's price point in about 18 months. That's faster than most people are predicting but as one of the world's largest consumers of NAND flash modules, Apple probably knows a lot more about it than we do.

I sort of doubt that we will see a 128GB portable device like the iphone/touch within 18 months.

But I'd love to be wrong.

There could be a million reasons why Apple chose no HD in their flagship product, battery life, warranty/repair issues, as you say only Apple knows, but I highly doubt we will see them make a fat brick ipod touch with a 160GB hard disk anytime soon.

[Surf Monkey]

Well, for one thing, I'd say that the Classic, not the Touch or iPhone is the flagship.

[Gunner]

I have a feeling that most people would disagree with that statement. There's more criteria to 'flaghship' than capacity.

The iphone/touch has a revolutionary interface and technology that has not been seen in a DAP before, maybe you should try it out, you might surprise yourself with your thoughts.

[jhollington]

While I'd personally agree that it's also my own feeling that the classic is still the flagship, or main iPod, the reality is that Apple is now officially being cagey in their new nomenclature.

The separate designations of "iPod touch" and "iPod classic" are meant to make it clear that they're not designating either unit right now as merely THE "iPod" -- so the consumers and other market forces are left to sort that out for themselves.

The reality is that there is no single "flagship" iPod any longer, at least not for now.

[Surf Monkey]

My main reason for saying that iPod Classic is the flagship has less to do with capacity than the fact that Classic is a highly refined and mature product while iPod touch is really less than a 1.0 device. It's a stripped down iPhone. And iPhone itself is too immature to be the flagship either. Ultimately, the Classic remains the iconic, emblematic iPod product that continues to define the brand.

[orimental]

A flagship product for a company usually refers to their leading brand, the most expensive, the most important, the best selling product.

Leading Brand? iPod, or rather the iPod classic - Everyone knows what the iPod looks like and it's pretty much unchanged in the classic.
Most Expensive? iPod touch - Self-explanatory.
Most Important? iPod touch - It's important to Apple because while the iPhone was a "good" device, many people wanted it just for the interface. Stripping it of the phone capability, but maintaining the interface lets them knock a few hundred off. So their goal here is to see if it sells like gangbusters at a lower price point, which it most likely will.
Best Selling? iPod nano - Self-explanatory.

So depending on how you look at it, any of the three could be their flagship product. But strictly speaking, Apple's flagship iPod is the classic.

[countach747]

About the smart playlist solution, I prefer to have full albums with me, and having my top 4,000 most played songs probably wouldn't fulfill that desire.

The new iTunes has an Album rating features, so now you can create a smart list that keeps whole albums together.

[Surf Monkey]

A flagship product for a company usually refers to their leading brand, the most expensive, the most important, the best selling product.


I disagree with that definition. The top of the line and the flagship are not always the same product. The definitive product is typically what people think of as the flagship. Right now the iPod Classic is the definitive product, therefore it's still the flagship. Besides, iPod Touch is neither the most important nor the most expensive product in the line either. The most expensive Apple hand held is the iPhone and the Touch is obviously not the most important since it's just an iPhone with the communications functions removed. If it was Apple's most important product, they would have made it innovative, not just a shadow of the iPhone.

[Gunner]

I disagree with that definition. The top of the line and the flagship are not always the same product. The definitive product is typically what people think of as the flagship. Right now the iPod Classic is the definitive product, therefore it's still the flagship. Besides, iPod Touch is neither the most important nor the most expensive product in the line either. The most expensive Apple hand held is the iPhone and the Touch is obviously not the most important since it's just an iPhone with the communications functions removed. If it was Apple's most important product, they would have made it innovative, not just a shadow of the iPhone.

Well, Steve Jobs seems to consider it the flagship. Look at how it was introduced. The iPhone was discussed 1st. They didn't then say "and here's our iPhone for those who don't want the phone features".

no.

no no no.

Instead they introduce shuffle, then the new Nano, then the revamped 'iPod' Classic. Then, the final, hysteria moment they introduce the iPod Touch.

Ya, it's the flagship, deal with it!

:p

[jhollington]

This is yet another semantic discussion that really serves little purpose other than entertainment, but anyway.... :)

My dictionary defines "flagship" in this context as "the best or most important thing owned or produced by a particular organization"

So, based on that particular definition, we could still argue this all day, and Apple hasn't necessarily tipped their hand as to what they consider to be their most important product.

I still think Apple is being cagey by not giving the name "iPod" to either of their top-of-the-line devices, thereby designated neither as their primary, or "flagship" device.

[Tim3167]

I disagree with that definition. The top of the line and the flagship are not always the same product. The definitive product is typically what people think of as the flagship. Right now the iPod Classic is the definitive product, therefore it's still the flagship. Besides, iPod Touch is neither the most important nor the most expensive product in the line either. The most expensive Apple hand held is the iPhone and the Touch is obviously not the most important since it's just an iPhone with the communications functions removed. If it was Apple's most important product, they would have made it innovative, not just a shadow of the iPhone.

With all due respect, it seems to me that timing is driving your perception of the Touch. The IPhone was only released like 3-4 months ago, certainly not long enough to classify it as old has been technology. Would your perception of the device be totally different if the Touch was released first and then 3 months later the IPhone was introduced as a Touch with a Phone added on? Or even if they were introduced at the same time?

[yacoub]

It would be great to see the following added in firmware updates:

E-mail
Notes
Games

[marinelayer]

There is no true flagship anymore. Imagewise it should be the classic. Saleswise it should be the nano. The touch (and the iPhone) don't have the distinctive look the original iPods did, but Apple wants to transition many current iPod owners to the new user experience. The market is now segmented, Apple's task is to make sure that the product lines are well defined so as to avoid confusion. I went a popular mall here in Silicon Valley at 8:45 PM last night and the Apple Store was the only shop that really had people in it. In fact it was packed. Overhearing conversations it appeared that there were just about equal numbers interested in the iPhone, touch, classic and nano, all curious about playing with the entire line. Sounds like Apple's done its job.

Strategically it makes sense to segment in this manner as it makes Apple more difficult to target by competitors. In 2-3 years we may find that the true flagship didn't exist in September 2007. The oft-rumored iPhone nano may be that product. In any case it's all semantics at this point and is largely irrelevant.

[Kalv]

I agree, I think the Touch looks awesome, sexy design and interface but 16GB...thats lame!

A year atleast and you'll see it doubled if not tripled! :D

[jhollington]

It would be great to see the following added in firmware updates:

E-mail
Notes
Games
Notes are a very odd omission, considering that every previous generation of iPod has provided at least a note-reading capability.

Games are not available for even the iPhone yet, although I suspect that this is one of these things that will come eventually. The concept of any realistic gaming on iPods in general is relatively new anyway.

I wouldn't expect to see a real e-mail client on the iPod touch anytime soon, however. A mail application is more the domain of a typical smartphone, which makes it more of an iPhone feature. There obviously have to be some features other than the phone that still differentiate the two devices.

The iPod touch is about media playback, not really Internet communications or e-mail. Apple is providing a few new features to enhance the iPod experience, rather than trying to turn the iPod into a PDA, smartphone, or PSP. Even the browser is merely a concession to providing efficient WiFi access for the media-centric features like YouTube and the iTunes WiFi Store.

[Surf Monkey]

Well, Steve Jobs seems to consider it the flagship.


Did he say "our new flagship iPod!"

No.

No, no, no.

[Gunner]

Did he say "our new flagship iPod!"

No.

No, no, no.

Well, it was the culmination/pinnacle of his presentation, unless you'd like to dispute that.

Some things don't have to be 'said' to be 'said'. :)

[Surf Monkey]

With all due respect, it seems to me that timing is driving your perception of the Touch. The IPhone was only released like 3-4 months ago, certainly not long enough to classify it as old has been technology. Would your perception of the device be totally different if the Touch was released first and then 3 months later the IPhone was introduced as a Touch with a Phone added on? Or even if they were introduced at the same time?


No, timing has nothing to do with it. Feel free to read my many posts on the subject. The issue here is that the iPhone is very obviously designed around the communications functions that it possesses. The software and the hardware are very clearly optimized for that function. iPod Touch on the other hand is nothing but an iPhone with those core functions stripped away. It wouldn't mater which one came out first. The evidence is right there in the industrial and software design of the devices. That's why I find iPod Touch to be a disappointment. It didn't get specific design attention from Apple in the same way that the iPhone, the Shuffle, the Nano or practically any other Apple product did. It appears to me (and many others here and elsewhere) that Apple took the easy way out with iPod Touch. Rather than make it a unique product that would compliment their other devices, they made it a shadow of iPhone.

[Surf Monkey]

Well, it was the culmination/pinnacle of his presentation, unless you'd like to dispute that.

Some things don't have to be 'said' to be 'said'. :)


So what? The last thing Jobs talks about at any particular event is the flagship device in their lineup? The fact that he talked about it last doesn't mean anything other than that it's new and he wanted to place focus on it.

[a113524c]

I think it would have been a good idea to reverse the release dates of the iPod Touch and iPhone. It would have changed the perspective of the iPod Touch. Remember, the iPhone is listed in a whole different tab than the iPod Touch on apple.com. Its not inluded in the iPod+iTunes tab. Apple meant for it to be a seperate product.

I don't think that you can really compare the iPod Touch and iPhone as flagship products. To me thats like comparing a macbook to an imac. They are two different products meant for two different types of people. The macbook is for people who need a portable laptop and the imac is for people who want a big display and a good amount of storage.

To me, the iphone is more of a buisness product. It's great for business people who are on the road a lot and need an all in one product so they don't have to keep tract of a laptop, ipod and phone while away. The iPod Touch is an iPod with an iTunes store, its a product focused on entertainment. Remember the only reason apple put safari in there was to enable you to sign on to wireless networks ex. at airports or colleges. Its main focus is the iPod, youtube and the iTunes store.

So my conclusion is that there is no flagship product. As people stated before me there are different products for different people.

iPhone-People who don't want to carry a phone, laptop, and ipod with them all the time.
iPod Touch-People want a product centered around entertainment (ex. music, videos...)
iPod Classic-People who want to fit their whole library in their pocket
iPod Touch-People who don't have that much music but want an iPod with video
iPod shuffle-People who know how to create smart playlists and need portablility while working out etc.

This is just my opinion, feel free to pick apart my thoughts.:D

[Surf Monkey]

In the iPod line, I'd still characterize iPod Classic as the flagship because it's a mature, refined product. Touch is a stripped down iPhone, no matter how you slice it. Apple didn't make the effort to clearly differentiate between the two (as you suggest they were trying to do) by making iPhone a very communications focused device and Touch a very media focused device. Instead, they made one product focused around communications and then yanked out a bunch of the guts to make Touch. In that way, Apple dropped the ball IMO. iPod Touch could have and should have been a very focused media player with hardware and software that clearly distinguished it from iPhone. But it isn't. It's an iPhone without the phone. BIG difference.

[a113524c]

Yes I agree that the iPod Touch is definately an iPhone without the phone and apple did defniately take the easy way out by doing this. But I am just wondering, what could they have added or changed to make it a media focused device. What could they have done to make it more than a phonless iPhone?

I can't really think of anything, I am just wondering what you think.

[Gunner]

Well, Apple was faced with a dilemma. Memory prices hadn't dropped far enough to offer the touch in a more useable capacity, say 32GB, but on the other hand people had been clamoring for an iphone sans phone since that device came out.

I think that the 32GB touch is a stop gap device until they can provide higher capacities next year.

I will buy the 16GB device, which will still let me take my 'rated' music collection with me (3 stars and up) as well as some video (something pretty pathetic on my 5G device right now) and let me really enjoy my photo album on the go.

I will sell it and buy the 32GB or 64GB that is bound to come along in 12 months or so and take the hit at that time.

[Surf Monkey]

Yes I agree that the iPod Touch is definately an iPhone without the phone and apple did defniately take the easy way out by doing this. But I am just wondering, what could they have added or changed to make it a media focused device. What could they have done to make it more than a phonless iPhone?

I can't really think of anything, I am just wondering what you think.


Well, for one thing, they could have refined the iPod software beyond what's on iPhone. Maybe they will by the time it comes out but right now it appears to be exactly the same. The iPhone's iPod software has some serious functional drawbacks that could be easily solved. Second,they could have given it a different physical design. Dump the blank space at the top for instance - you know, where the speaker for the iPhone goes? Make it look more like an iPod and less like an iPhone in some way. Right now, most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference at a glance. That's problematic. Yet another thing they could have done is to provide more hard buttons for critical functions like skipping forward and backwards through tracks and scrubbing back and forward through tracks. The inline "remote" on the iPhone head phones (we don't know if iPod Touch will even come with that) isn't much to write home about. It's almost like an after thought. Yet another way they could have made it more media focused would have been to make the Wi-Fi module work in ways that iPhone doesn't, like allowing for wireless sync with the iTunes library and live downloads of podcasts for example.

Seriously. There are hundreds of ways that Apple could have made iPod Touch a true media player, not just an iPhone with it's communications modules yanked out.

[countach747]

Yet another thing they could have done is to provide more hard buttons for critical functions like skipping forward and backwards through tracks and scrubbing back and forward through tracks.

I don't think the ipod touch can be considered a proper ipod until it has controls you can operate without looking for the basic functions, volume up/down, skip, pause etc.

[Gunner]

I don't think the ipod touch can be considered a proper ipod until it has controls you can operate without looking for the basic functions, volume up/down, skip, pause etc.

There are a number of ways this can be addressed though that don't require adding physical hard buttons to the device.

inline remote control, wireless remote control, voice command (assuming it has the microphone that the iphone does), etc.

One of the biggest advantages of a device like the iphone/touch is that with fewer mechanical components (click wheel, etc) there are fewer parts to break.

Additionally the ipod touch is shorter and thinner than the ipod touch. Could they have made it even smaller with the same size screen? Maybe, but right now these are new, expensive to manufacture products and they are looking to leverage some common components between the devices. I certainly won't fault them for that.

It seems to me that many people are disappointed that the ipod touch was not a 'from scratch' media centric device with enough storage to carry a large library with them.

It's too bad that's not what Apple delivered, but this is still a nice device, with merit of its own.

[scandal881]

I am of two minds about the touch. I think that an iPhone without the phone is a great idea. Using the whole face of the device as a video screen makes mobile video much more attractive than it was on the 5g/Classic.

I also think flash memory has a lot of advantages over hard drives. I think hard drives are really sub-ideal as a portable media format. A lot of iPod failure tends to be hard drive failures, and a portable device is at a lot of risk of being exposed to moisture or getting dropped, which flash devices survive much better.

I have been using HD based iPods for 3 years, and they skip when you run with them, and just the motion of walking with the device in your pocket is enough to eventually make the thing go sad mac on you. The various cases and shock absorbers really seem limited in their effectiveness against drops.

If you use your ipod just in your car or at your desk, the hard drives are fine, but if you commute by subway, run with your ipod or take it to the gym, or carry your device while walking around the city, the lighter, less fragile flash devices are a big improvement.

I would have preferred a higher capacity device, though. I'm debating getting one, because I just bought a new Nano.