What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Windows 7 Needs An Extra Layer of Security view!
free.avg.com - AVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0 works with Windows 7, to provide the best protection against web threats.
321 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -10/+125Why they hatin'?
- scottybowl, on 10/10/2007, -7/+104give it time, it'll be hacked
- mck9235, on 10/10/2007, -12/+108Apple, $400 can only seem like a good deal for so long. Stop removing everything that made it worth even close to $400.
- bolero421, on 10/10/2007, -1/+63I really just don't understand the logic behind this. If Apple is trying to differentiate between the iPod Touch and the iPhone, this seems like a very round-about and trivial way to do so. The primary reason someone is going to buy the iPone over the iPod is, well, it makes calls. The primary reason someone is going to buy the iPod over the iPhone is greater storage capacity for music and video along with not having to pay monthly / yearly fees.
I just don't understand why they went out of their way to remove a feature that really has no influence on a persons buying decision. - subzeroash, on 10/10/2007, -12/+72People are thinking of the iPod touch as a phone-less iPhone, but that's backwards.
It's really the iPod functionality of the iPhone, with a couple other things.
If they wanted to make a PDA, they could easily leave in all the other stuff, but Apple doesn't want to make a PDA, they want to make an iPod.
Of course, if YOU want an Apple PDA... you could probably hack in most of the iPhone features. (Or buy a Newton) - ForbesBingley, on 10/10/2007, -5/+56While they're at it, why don't Apple not let people run or install iCal on the Mac Mini? [/sarcasm]
This is a bizarre move, which I'm not sure is going to give Apple the desired result they're looking for... - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+51Because the ipod touch doesn't require 60 dollars a month to work.
- capecodcarl, on 10/10/2007, -4/+49I'll never understand people that buy a product that is intentionally defective by design and then hope that it gets "hacked" to add more functionality that should have existed on the device in the first place.
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+46It's not about who you're going to contact -- it's about whose contact information you might want to store for later.
You know, the cassic "hey, give me a call" response when you suddenly meet someone out on the street who you haven't seen in years. You'd think that the piece of tech in your pocket, which already holds all your other contacts, would allow you to put this poor fellow in there as well...
...or maybe it's just a play from Apple to sell more iPens and iSpiralBlocks. - HouseCentipede, on 10/10/2007, -18/+55I think "crippled" a bit strong of a word for removing something that seems superfluous to the device. Could we please be less sensational?
- Wandel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+35Weak.
- unfinity, on 10/10/2007, -4/+35I can't remember any that had the same touch screen keyboard that the iPhone has...
- ThndrShk2k, on 10/10/2007, -19/+49Because who are you going to contact with an iPod? It's not a phone.
Now removing the ability for events from a calender, that is hatin. - Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -0/+27Well, it's removal is effecting my purchasing decision. But not in a good way for Apple. It means I'm more likely to get a Nano or nothing at all.
- Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26Maybe. But I'm an Apple fanboy and I tell you this, and the ringtones idiocy is making me change my attitude towards the company. I don't want a new phone, and I'm Europe anyway but I do need a replacement MP3 player and I was very attracted to the Touch. It's gorgeous to look at, but really to make me justify buying it, rather than say a Nano, I need some extra functionality otherwise I'm going to hate myself for just being attracted by the bling.
A stupid move like crippling the calendar makes me think that Apple is treating its customers with contempt and as stupid. And you know what? I don't like being treated with contempt.
If you are going to put 802.11 in and a full Web browser you cannot then complain that people are looking for very very basic PDA functionality. - Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23Can you remember any ipods before Touch that featured an onscreen keyboard? or Wireless or a Web browser?
- evelian, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19I don't get the attitude of "oh it wasn't in other ipods so quit whining." That's not really the point, as there are lots of things in the iPod Touch that were never in the other iPods. It'd be like finding out you can't get to SSL sites in Safari, and saying, "oh well you couldn't get to ssl sites in the old ipods so suck it up."
I pre-ordered an iPod Touch, and paid more for less space, because I will definitely take advantage of the WiFi and what I thought was going to be just like the iPhone calendar. It was already a tough decision, and now I'm seriously considering canceling my pre-order and just going with the Classic because now I have one less reason to justify my purchase. - daridave, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Yeah, and "It may be normal for Redmond, but certainly not for Cupertino.".
Oh, puh-lease. I love Apple, but whoever agrees with that is lame. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17tsk tsk apple, I'm a massive fan and I REALLY want a touch and have no desire to pay for an iPhone (uk price will be astronomical, always is with phones)
I'd rather just give you all the money for a decent iPod touch with 90% of iPhone functionality, than give money to ***** carriers - gossipninja, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15it starts at 300 for the 8 gig, and is 400 for the 16 gig.
- nephilonic, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20I logged in just to digg this story.
I wanted an iPod with the added functionality of things like the calendar. This is what really sold me on it. I ordered it based on that fact, I will not be tempted into buying the iPhone. I am now cancelling my order and feel disgusted at Apple for doing this.
Apple, don't ***** us over. Don't be Microsoft. Don't intentionally cripple this device, if you don't reinstate this functionality, hackers will.
You've lost my money, and my respect. - fareed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17None of the iPods had a touch screen either.
- justok, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16We talked about this at the meeting. You weren't there. Did you forget? You should have had it on your calendar...
- Quickdood, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Wow Apple is turning into Microsoft. Why the hell wouldn't they allow people to edit a calender, if the the capability is there then why take it away. Whats next you can only go to pre-bookmarked sites on safari and they eliminate the keyboard function therefore one cant use google to search??? At first I was thinking maybe I won't hack the Touch, maybe I would just leave it be but now I am not sure I can do that, with no calender and no NOTES feature WTF.
- leejae, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15I think Apple is trying to stop the iPod Touch from cannabalizing iPhone sales by making the iPhone more "special."
- saleem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13apple fan-boyism is a disease, and you should be evaluated by a medical professional.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Creating an argument to buy both? The iPhone has all the features of the iPod Touch, why in the hell would you ever buy both?
- kethraal, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15@JeffMcKamey:
First, apologies for the reply -- Diggs comment system sucks, and refuses to let me reply to a specific post, so this is the best I can do. (As an aside: Digg... how can you ***** up something as simple as hierarchal comments this badly?)
So your Mac history isn't too up-to-snuff... fair enough....
1) The IIsi was not artificially limited, compared to the IIci. The IIsi was designed to be a budget machine. Its motherboard was derived from the IIci, the really expensive components were removed, and a cheaper processor was used. By using chips clocked at 20 MHz, Apple could use 68030's that didn't pass QC for a higher chip speed -- i.e. cheaper chips. If you can run your IIsi at 40 MHz... great. Most can't reliably be clocked that fast. Somehow I fail to believe that Apple had a bunch of 40 MHz chips and said "Well... we need more difference in our product lines... so let's just waste these really expensive chips and clock them down to half their speed."
2) The Apple II was at 1 Mhz... because when it was invented, an 8 MHz 6502 wasn't an option. In 1977, when the Apple II was first introduced, a 1 MHz 6502 was a fast chip for a home machine. It wasn't in competition with anything either -- so why would they artificially limit it?
3) The IIGS was supposed to provide a sort of "middle ground" between the aging Apple II line and the new Macintosh line. This is the one machine that you might be able to argue was limited to support another product. Of course, the IIgs also featured a Mac-like interface, so I don't know how much seperation they were trying to acheive...
4) I think it's HYSTERICAL what you said about the Lisa OS though. Wait to demonstrate a fantastic misunderstanding of history. The Macintosh had a 64K ROM and a 128K of RAM (about 30K or so was used by the OS.) 84K. That's not very much. In fact -- that's very little. The Lisa had at least 512K of memory, excluding ROM. Using Pascal for the Macintosh OS would have made it nearly impossible to fit as many Toolbox routines in ROM, and probably would have made the OS too big to run comfortably in 30K. It's not as though the decision to write the OS, etc. in ASM prevented people from writing apps in Pascal though -- even the Puzzle Desk Accesory was initially written in Pascal. (Not to mention a large portion of commercial software.)
It is also possible that this move wasn't an intentional one -- and the iPod Touch still might be revised as the software matures.... but I guess that kinda lacks the drama of "OMG APPLE IS CRIPPLING THE IPOD!!!", huh? - NeoRicen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13The text about entering events is missing from the Australian site now too, not just the US. Looks like Apple noticed and is removing all the references.
- ladbroke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I know a lot of people a saying this isn't a big deal, but using this to replace my Palm T|X would be my entire reason for buying one. This is exactly the functionality I was looking for. There are other ways to segment the market besides crippling it by removing such a basic feature.
Luckily, since it's based on mobile OS X, it's only a matter of time until someone figures out a l33t haxx0r workaround. - Optimaximal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11THIS IS THE INTERNET!
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11What space is there to waste? The app is there. It has already been designed to hold the button.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -25/+35can't remember any iPods before "Touch" that allowed you to enter information into the device...
- waddling, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17And how long before that gets hacked too
- Rodinau, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10It's less the fact that the feature might not be important to some people, but more the attitude that Apple is taking, intentionally crippling something which many people would like which doesn't do any harm it being there. Is this the sort of attitude we want to see?
As the page says, this is the sort of behaviour and attitude some might associate with Microsoft rathe than Apple. - the_d, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8They saw you rollin'.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8let the hacking begin!
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Of course Apple can do what they want...just like I can change my mind about wanting one. This is a poor move on Apple's part, and it does in fact cause me considerable hesitation. If I wanted an iPod that would be a good iPod, I'd go with the classic, which is better designed for interacting with media on the go. If the Touch limits its ability to be used as a productivity platform, it limits what I would have expected to be its core market: music and productivity in a single package.
Since I happen to be in that segment, my own intentions just switched from "buy" to "wait and see." - Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Neither is my Wide Screen Macbook Pro. My point is Widescreen = anything wider then 4:3.
- jesterkap2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I'm seriously considering cancelling my preorder. I know people are saying that previous ipods didnt feature it, but this is billed as an iphone-less iphone. I wanted a calender to edit and sync with my mac. No other ipod has been outrageously overpriced for nano storage space. I am not switching back from verizon back to ATT (***** service) just because I love apple products. Taking out touch screen keyboard for no reason is just lame. This and the ringtone thing are making me dislike apple. Stop screwing the people who have always supported you.
- DLicious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html
Let them know that this isn't cool. - PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I'm as disapointed as anyone about the the calendar's lack of functionality, but many of your things that the touch should have are bogus:
1) Bluetooth for headphones???? This is unnecessary ... who wants to have to charge their headphones.
2) Mic for Skype. They probably have a licensing agreement with ATT saying they can't create a phone device that doesn't help ATT. Additionally, Apple makes $$$ everytime someone gets an ATT contract for an iPhone, so they would be forgoing a lot of revenue by allowing people to skype.
3) I'm with you on the speakers.
4) What would you need a camera on an iPod for? So you can have a ***** 2 Mega pixel picture? Get a camera!
5 +6) they really need to add these. - drewkinney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You got to be kidding, right?
You really are too lazy to type "hacked"?
I'm frightened for the future. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7actually it's $299 for 8 GB, so it sucks even more for you.
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The trouble is, the Touch is the worst choice of platform for JUST content viewing/listening, and the classic is still better for that purpose. I AM interested in the device, but only because I expect it to be like a PDA with a good interface and multimedia capabilities. I can't imagine what other purpose it could serve. If this is intentional, Apple is differentiating a GOOD product (Touch, open wireless) from a BAD one (phone that's locked down and under exclusivity contract) by WEAKENING it. I'm saving my money for a good product that isn't weakened.
- skoles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Maybe it's only me, but does anyone else think the BT icon seen on the iPod Touch shots were just because they used an iPhone screen mockup? It's just a screengrab a designer took and placed unaware of the icon.
- OdinEye, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I'm an Apple fan, and I can't defend this move. I was, in fact, very disappointed when I first discovered that I could have my calendar on my iPod, but could not add or change events.
The iPod Touch has the potential to function as an excellent PDA in addition to being an excellent digital music player. With those features enabled, people who don't want the phone features but may want the extra memory could choose it and then carry only two devices (iPod Touch and phone) as opposed to three.
As far as "hesitating when given a choice", the use of AT&T as the carrier already causes the hesitation for me. Not because I'm an AT&T hater, mind you, but because I do rural consulting, and AT&T's network is very sketchy over much of the area that I cover. Having a phone on which people can't reach me half of the time is not terribly useful. Having a 16gb PDA that also plays my music, and perhaps a video for my kid in the car on occasion - now that's useful. - cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -1/+7Because the iPhone isn't available for sale in any country except for the U.S.?
- eridius, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Well that's funny, I just checked the US Features page and it's still listed. Until somebody actually has an iPhone touch in their hands, I think it's too early to be working up outrage at rumors like this.
- Billions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Well... Consider opting for the iPhone?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 323 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is