What is Digg?94 Comments
- Experiment626, on 10/10/2007, -5/+53I think the main problem with the iPod Touch is at best a compromise product, neither here nor there, carefully calculated so as not to eat into the market share of its siblings - it isn't as capable as the iPhone, and doesn't have nearly enough storage as an iPod Classic. For the first time, I think Jobs has too many iPod models than he needs. Why couldn't he just have given us a hard drive based iPod Touch, gotten rid of the Classic and be done with it?
I suspect that the iPod Touch will be attractive mainly to folks outside the US who can't get an iPhone but have nonetheless fallen for all the hype over its interface. - markwilcox, on 10/10/2007, -16/+36This is a crap review as they review it as an iPhone without a phone, and not an iPod. The iPod touch is still very good compared to any other ipods that have been released so far (not counting storage, of course).
I'm still picking one up.. - davdav, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Removing the iPod Classic would be a terrible decision. Tactile feedback is extremely important. I don't want to divert all my attention to changing a song with some fancy finger swoop when I can do it blindly by feel.
- TenMinuteParty, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15All these anti-Touch reviews are from people already too happy with their iPhones. But what they fail to mention is that this product (Which I now own) is a stellar multi-media device. It lacks a lot in comparison to the iPhone, but it gives the best of that technology to those who can go without a new phone. As for the screen being less than desirable, it's a load of b.s., the screen is amazingly colorful and, if needed, can adjust brightness to perform better, which I'm sure is the exact same case as the iPhone. Bottom line: exactly what I need it for, great screen, new iPod. Now if you think it sucks, buy an iPhone or a classic (which ever one your bias is leaning more towards).
- aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10...so rather then carry around one iPod I have to carry around an iPod and a remote?
The iPod classic is for people who want to listen to music, but don't do much other stuff with their iPod. I have a laptop if I want to watch movies or use wireless on the road. I don't want a giant touchscreen that will get scratched and then also have to carry around a stupid little remote. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11maybe it's a B- compared to an iphone, but maybe it should be reviewed in comparison to the rest of the devices on the market. In that regard, the iPod Touch would probably lose points only over price and storage capacity, although iPods are never really cheaper than the competition anyway.
Yeah, it's not as good as an iPhone, but the iPhone is $100 more and requires a $60/month contract with AT&T, that's the deal breaker for me. I don't see why they say the Touch's cosmetics are compromised, and the screen problems (black inverted defects, dead pixels) they report are obviously from a bad batch, and Apple seems to be replacing them in store. I certainly wouldn't review a product badly if it had dead pixels, especially from an early batch.
This doesn't seem like a "no BS" review. The only product that they really cite that does all this stuff better is an iPhone, which costs thousands more in TCO and is made by Apple. What other product does all this stuff so well in this small package with such a big screen?
Their gripes about battery size are lame, too. Of course a phone will have a bigger battery, phones need more power and it's more critical that the battery doesn't run out. - jonoxplor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10In australia, even thought it comes with a big price tag, the touch is quite appealing.
- modusop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Remember, iLounge really reviews from a "purist" point of view: they see the iPod as the premiere brand, rather than iPhone, and they're going to have some issues adjusting as Apple makes this transition. It's obvious from Phil Schiller's statements that the "iPhone is the top of the line iPod" that the direction they're going will definitely put the iPhone above the iPod in terms of flagship status.
That said, it is a thorough review that makes some very valid points. - Proctor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Agreed, I see bad reviews for the iPod Touch everywhere saying it's not like the iPhone. Of course it's not...it's not an iPhone. It's solely a mutlimedia device. We're lucky Apple even put WiFi in it! Sure enough it will be jailbroken and those apps that are missing will be available in a package, as well as all the other iPhone applications that were made.
- Kelmon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The iPod Touch definitely seems to be a "work in progress". Honestly, I think the article is correct and there's definitely some very odd decisions at work here. The iPod Touch needs to decide what it really is and what space is occupies in the iPod range. Definitely I do not believe that people want a cut-down iPhone. You either want a great iPod or great iPhone but definitely not a 0.5 iPhone. As with a lot of people I was expecting to see the iPod Touch replace the Classic and that's really where it should have gone - the current model will no doubt just be confusing to the customers.
- davdav, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Router status page should list all MACs connected. Just turn it off for a moment, connect, see MAC.
- Tippis, on 10/13/2007, -1/+6If you only ever reviewed things on their own merit, everything would always get a perfect 10 since there would be no point of reference. The obvious point of reference for the Touch is the iPhone, and just about every review I've seen says it falls short of that point.
- markwilcox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Battery life and design.
- dethblud, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7This review would be the no BS edition if it didn't mention the iPhone every other sentence. I have a phone I love and don't care about the iPhone. At all. Why can't I read a review of the iPod touch that reviews it as an iPod, not as an iPhone?
- Backdrifts, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7They wanted to make money? Holy *****! A company that wants to make money! That's totally crazy, what kind of company wants to make money?? You're kidding, yeh? I mean, I just cant fathom that a company wants to make money, the whole idea is just absurd. It's crazy. You're crazy.
- jpb0104, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5isn't it obvious that the touch is an iphone substitute for people who don't want/need the phone capabilities. so why wouldn't he compare the touch to the iphone?
and why doesn't ilounge have enough bandwidth to support a frontpage digg? - IEatHamburgers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What they need to do is make it so a circular finger motion (like if you were pretending there was a click wheel there) would change the volume. I don't think it would have conflicted with anything.
- miniboss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The iPod Touch is modeled after the iPhone. It runs the same OS, runs very similar hardware, is visually similar, it very close in price to the iPhone and it is many times called "the iPhone without a Phone". Yet it shouldn't be compared to an iPhone?
Bottom line is that if the PRODUCT (not the review) held up favorably to the iPhone then you guys would be fine with it. But because the iPhone exposes what's missing in the iPod Touch then suddenly we should pretend they aren't comparable products.
BTW. I own an iPod Touch. It is a very good but it does have it's shortcomings that will probably be addressed in the future so if you can resist then buy an iPhone or just wait for rev2. - sargentr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4everything in this review is comparing it to a iphone, yea they are similar but not the same, the useless statements of telling the reader that it doesn't come with a bunch of the iphones features is pointless. if your looking for a justification on why you should get and iphone over this then yea i guess its good. but for people looking for an ipod you need to read it much more carefully.
- miniboss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm exactly the customer Apple was going for with this. Someone who got sucked into the interface hype and was willing to dish out extra cash for less product. I do like the thing, but I now realize the importance of tactile control.
I love the internet, I love the photos but when it comes to music and video then surprisingly I'm preferring the wheel and it's more traditional style of finding your media. IMO, the best iPod in this batch is the Nano (but I probably will keep the Touch). - Hamletlere, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If it's a *media player*, not a phone or whatever, then why must it have a calendar and address book? Why cripple the calendar instead of removing it altogether?
- ExSlashdotter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes, I have a touch it does tell you the MAC from the 'About' screen (home screen -> Settings -> General -> About). Still, it wouldnt matter, all you'd have to do is disable your MAC filter, connect the iPod, and look in your DHCP clients list. As a full-time network administrator, I can tell you without a doubt that MAC filtering is the worst way to really lock down your AP. Why not use WPA? Everything supports it now.
- DagMX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4mm why should you buy a peripheral just to use the device normally?
That is a crap argument because, yes you could get a remote but its something that you'd have to carry along with you. If your using a pair of wireless headphones then it isn't ideal either.
One size doesnt fit all.
And as a music player, hardware music keys are important. It wouldn't have hurt to have them on the side. Having to look at the screen for every minor function is not ideal - EdwardsNH, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sorry, but I much prefer flash, and 16 gig is pleanty big for me. And yes, I would put mostly videos and audiobooks on it.
- MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I would agree. I recently bought a new iPod and could easily have waited for the Touch. But when I thought about how I used my nanos in the past (90% of the time in my car), I went with an 80gb Classic. The whole click-wheel interface makes it much easier to use how I need to use it without having to take my eyes off the road.
If Apple had included a remote that was similar to the Classic iPod click-wheel, then I might have bought a Touch instead. We'll see what happens in the future, but for now, I'm sticking with the less-expensive, more-storage option. - davdav, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5http://digg.com/linux_unix/New_Ipod_Hash_Cracked_Linux_Supported_Once_Again
cry? - shadowpr0ph3t, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Are serious in saying they won't have a updated version in a year?
- DirtyBrowncoat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If all the fanboys could cease parroting the "It's a media player, not a PDA" mantra, I'd appreciate it. I know it makes you feel all warm and cozy about your beloved company, but I've already heard it a million times, and it still doesn't convince me that the iPod Touch is Lord Steve's gift to the world.
The iPod stopped being just a "media player" when it included contacts, calendar, clock, notes, and whatever else is included in the iPod. Period. End of story.
Second, it's one thing to not include certain programs in order to make the iPhone more attractive. I'm talking about the exclusion of Mail, Google Maps, Stocks, Weather, and Notes. It's another to put the identical application on the iPod Touch and then cripple a small, but extremely useful, feature, and THEN remove mention from it from the website and hope no one notices, in order to make the iPhone more attractive.
So, please, stop mentioning that the Touch is just an "iPod" or "media player" when it has wi-fi, Safari, a full functioning keyboard, contacts, and a calendar. It's really starting to sound pathetic at this point. Thank you. - akf2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Can someone with a Touch tell me if it displays its mac address somewhere, is it on the box or wifi settings? I use mac filtering on my router and want to make sure it'll work.
- miniboss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I own a touch and it really is something that sadly falls short when compared to the other iPods. The Nano has the size, the classic has the capacity, the phone has everything else.
- IEatHamburgers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I've heard on Digg that the screen quality is not the same across the board - you might've gotten a good one and they got a bad one. But that's just a rumor as far as I know.
- socket, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Wtf are you talking about? PDA's with flash memory (iPhone and iPod touch included) still have separate RAM for the OS.
You mean to say more simply that adding a hard drive requires larger batteries or drastically reduced runtime. Lets go back to school and learn a little about computer hardware before we talk about it. - Kelmon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not an excuse for a confused product. The capacity isn't so much of an issue since 16GB is OK but cheaper parts and reduced functionality? No thanks. If I'm going to spend that sort of money then I want to feel like I've bought a luxury product.
- Lorddias, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Screw iPod, wheres the reviews for the iBeat Blaxx?
- zebwinz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5How can you say whether the ipod Touch is good or not? You stated that you haven't picked one up yet.
- Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2An inferior screen to the iPhone as well as inferior audio to the iPod Classic. Those pictures of The Incredibles playing on the iPod Touch and iPhone are quite damning, as well as pictures comparing the iPod Touch to iTunes. That picture looks nasty.
The Comparison to the iPhone is that the iPod Touch is summed up quite well by the first comment on this page, that it is a compromised product designed not to eat into the market of its siblings. - superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why not get an iPhone and simply not buy service for it? There are ways to activate the phone without service...
- ExSlashdotter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't know. Out company is about 80% Mac, and not one of our users can't connect to our WPA-enabled wi-fi. My MBP at home connects just fine to my linksys router with WPA2-personal enabled.
- Promantarius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Unfortunately it seems the main interaction people have with Apple these days is with their iPod and iPhone devices and not their Macintosh platform, so a disproportionally large number of articles about Apple would naturally be dedicated to those devices. Best way to fix that problem? Alter your RSS reader to filter out the Apple section or try to avoid it, not easy if you look at a main category but it can be done :)
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4the ipod touch and iphone run a full fledged OS, they always access their memory, and it would be a disaster to run a hard drive. do you know of a single PDA that has ever used a hard drive? it just doesn't work.
They'd have to combine some flash memory for the OS and a hard drive for the songs, making it bulky and expensive, requiring a large battery. - miniboss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Note: I am not saying it is bad. But as an iPod Touch owner I'm sad to say that this is a disappointing product. And that has much to do with how great the iPhone is.
I think the best description for the Touch experience is that it feels like one of those asian ripoff products that always pop up right after a big Apple announcement. It looks and feels like the real thing but when you use it then it's obvious that it is missing something. - IEatHamburgers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Since the iPhone is out of my reach (nearest AT&T coverage is 100 miles away dammit), this is what I'm left with. Since I had only a little more than 300 songs on my iPod 5G that I no longer have, the capacity isn't a problem for me, so I'm still getting the Touch because of the Wifi and slick interface. However, if the screen is as fricked up as the guys at iLounge say (I've heard on Digg that it's not a universal problem with the Touches) back to Apple it goes.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5http://www.better-english.com/easier/theyre.htm
Couldn't resist. - awhiteflame, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Every single iPhone user I've talked to says differently. They say that, after using it regularly, the experience is much different than you would expect by reading about it.
- IEatHamburgers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you notice the sidebar that shows the crew there, every single one of them owns an iPhone. I'm not surprised that's all they talk about.
- Avian00, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I COMPLETELY agree! I really had hope that this new iPod Touch could be both my new iPod AND my new PDA. Based on what I've read so far, I think that idea is out the window. Too bad.
What really gets to me is that the limitations are obviously intentional, since they are merely software limitations. I'm not really getting Apple lately... Locking down the iPhone to a single carrier? Not allowing 3rd-party apps? Crippling the freaking calendar app on the touch? Frankly, they're making lots of consumer-UNfriendly moves right now. - MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Thank you for that ever so enlightening comment. I'm sure all of digg was waiting breathlessly to know what obxjdt thought. Obviously Apple is DOOMED!
- HiCaP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2lol, Don't quit your day job.
- jydesign, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, the first second I saw the 'touch', I knew it was a rush to get a phone-less iPhone out there (http://www.jydesign.com/blog/2007/09/more-pods-than-invasion-of-body.html). Will still be functional, but looking forward to seeing it get over the v1.0 blues and gain an identity of its own as a product via some redesigning.
I still see the nano as being the most important of that release set. I knew of a lot of kids and teens that had a 5th gen iPod just to get video, but never came close to filling its capacity - so parents were really overpaying (or more likely not buying) video capable iPods. Now with the nano, it will be easy to placate your kids with a video player for a more reasonable price, so I see these selling a lot. - shout, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1man this site is so dugg it's not even funny.
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is