What is Digg?125 Comments
- mateo60, on 10/10/2007, -2/+96FTA...."The relatively hefty $300 and $400 price tags for 8 and 16 GB, respectively, don't bug me either. Why? This is probably the best portable media player ever made."
Wow. That's pretty high praise. - alphahack, on 10/10/2007, -4/+49PEOPLE! seriously you need to understand how things work, stop complaining about using a hard drive now and waiting for solid state prices to go down. It doesn't work that way. Let me lay it down for you. In order for the prices of solid state memory to go down you actually have to adopt it first so that more money goes into the solid state industry. What everyone is asking for is a hard drive now and flash later, but if we make that argument for this product the same case will be made for all other products that currently use a hard drive instead of solid state - purely on the basis of price. So if no one on the market decides to take the risk and start seriously supporting solid state memory, the price will never go down because we will always prefer the device that costs less to the device that provides longer battery life and more durability. When a standard is first adopted of course it's going to be expensive, the price will never go down if we don't start using it! Just think about dvd's has not the price gone down dramatically since its first appearance? It has done so because its adoption into the market has allowed for the development of cheaper production methods and ultimately streamlined mass production. I thank Apple for pushing solid state memory onto the market now so that it will become cheaper in the future. At the moment it is a push from the Industry's side, but as the standard begins to sell and as prices go down it will be lovingly embraced by the customer as well. So please I ask that you stop complaining and just see this as a temporary burden on the path to a better future of better, cheaper media.
- lordspidey, on 10/10/2007, -9/+44Dugg because iPod touch is an amazing innovation in the portable music player industry, and no matter how much i dislike apple i must say this is amazing. :)
- TheWorm, on 10/10/2007, -17/+51It bugs me that they could have made this product so much better if they would have just added a 30 gig hard drive and waited for Flash until the technology was cheaper. It would have been the perfect iPod.
- Helbrecht, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26Just the fact that this thing runs the iPhone's version of safari is the deal maker for me. I have it pre-ordered. :)
- tehWyman, on 08/19/2009, -1/+24The battery life would've blown.
- Satanael, on 10/10/2007, -9/+29Alex Albrecht mentioned it on Diggnation, and I agree; it would be excusable, I believe, if they made it just a little thicker and popped a hard drive in there. That's a lot of money for just 16GB
- reallydigginit, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25It's pretty clear that this thing rules. If you want to complain, it's simple: go out and buy a better one!
Oh, a better one doesn't exist? Then you should SHUT THE F*CK UP. - FoxOrian, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18A hard drive would drain the battery life, though. I know alot of people would rather want an iPod Touch that's as thick as the iPod Video just to have 30+ GB of storage, but the iPod Video [or "Classic" now,] does not have a higher-end processor and wi-fi to power. When you mix the large bright touch display, the processor, internal amp, and wi-fi, the last thing you want tugging on even more power is an HDD. Plus, for something like the touch, you want it to be responsive and zippy -- something those little slow-spinning hard-drives can't keep up with. It's just like the PSP -- running a game from the memory card can save a bit of battery compared to running the UMD drive, and help load much faster. [-- and don't forget when wi-fi is turned on with the PSP. The battery is decimated.]
- joshpar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20why wait when you can:
1) rush it out the door
2) upgrade later with more and cheaper memory
3) lower the price
It will happen. Just don't buy the first one. Why should everyone else wait along with you? - SenorCardgage74, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Noooooo way dude.
I sent that Nigerian prince 5 of these ***** things already and I have YET to get reimbursed.
As soon as that cashiers check from his father arrives and clears though, I will message you. - mrowlinson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14True. Dvorak would throw a ***** fit if the magazine let itself get caught up in some hype, especially Apple hype.
- kuwan, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17I don't mind the small storage size too much but that Apple has intentionally crippled the Touch by limiting the Calendar application and not including Mail, Google Maps and other applications is inexcusable. There's no reason not to include these software application other than some marketing dumbass has decided that they need to do something to arbitrarily "differentiate" the iPhone from the Touch.
If I were to guess I wouldn't be surprised if many of the iPhone/Touch engineers are just as upset as the rest of us that the Touch is running limited software and that there still isn't an official SDK for the devices. To me it seems obvious that the people that actually created the iPhone/Touch designed it as the ultimate mobile computing platform. I think they want it to run 3rd party apps, they want it to be an ultra-portable Mac - they're OS X engineers after all. Why else go to all the trouble of porting Mac OS X if you're not going to allow for application development? I'm sure they want the Touch to be just as capable as the iPhone sans the phone. But then of course a bunch of marketing ***** had to get together and say: "Nope, no 3rd party apps. And why do you guys have Mail and Google Maps running on the Touch? Take that off we need to sell phones somehow. Oh and the Calendar app, you can't edit events on the Touch, no other iPods do that, take that feature out too."
I'm still hopeful that we'll see an official SDK after Leopard is released. But if Leopard comes and goes and we don't see an SDK then I think Apple will have missed out on creating one of the most revolutionary platforms since the original Macintosh. Imagine if Apple had introduced the Macintosh without support for 3rd party development - that's pretty much how it seems now with the iPhone/Touch. - MadOtaku, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12PC mag has been a good source in the past too; rarely do they get too caught up in the hype, so this is doubly good (as it's probably true).
- enclave2, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15I want this to be a PDA.
I want everything it has, with support for third party apps, so I can use gmail and google calender. Give me that, and i'm in love. - Twee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Dvorak is a tool.
- Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Actually, as an original iPod Mini owner looking to upgrade, the 16Gigs limit doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me are the truly stupid decisions, like the one to stop you entering new calendar entries (unlike the phone) and to give you Web access, but no e-mail client, unlike the phone.
- fugazied, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Battery life on the Ipod touch with a HD is probably the issue.
- colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The iPhone/iPod Touch can play larger res media files and downscale them for you. This is the year 2007 after all. Not that you'd want to throw 1080p at it though...
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -0/+7You must be high if you think the iPhone/iPod Touch is a very large media player
- LordofChaosIori, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Let's not, but say we did.
- otatop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You mean just as good aside from the fact that it's ***** huge and has a tiny screen, right?
- Twee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Wait, you can't make new calendar entries on the iPod touch? That's unacceptable.
- fanboydcs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I am a huge Linux guy, and I loved my nokia 770, and I really really wanted the Nokia N800, but the iPod touch has so much more storage, its so light weight, and the screen res makes no difference since the iPod Touch and iPhone are resolution independent. For example, if I am on a Nokia 770 and I am viewing digg.com I can see the entire page but the text is way to small. on the iPhone/iPod touch the page is displayed in full and you double tap on the screen where you want to read, this is a much better way of browsing the web. Also the media player on the n800 is very poor, you have to convert all content and its very very laggy.
- subcomandante, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I think killer was just proving a point to worm. I think he's right.
- enchantedsky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Part of the extra thickness would obviously be a larger battery to accommodate longer battery life, along with a hard drive.
- colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6A little more? Seriously? 8 gigs minimum on the iPhone is "a little more" than the 64 megs or 128 megs that comes on most PocketPCs? Are you going to tell me next that Bill Gates only has "a little more" money than you do?
- killerofkiller, on 10/10/2007, -8/+12no, they will do that later and make more money.. and you'll be saying i wish they would of waited till i could of gotten a 60 gb flash drive in it.. it would of been the best ipod ever
- JuliusErving, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9After reading the first slew of comments, it's pretty clear people are hating on this device just because it's made by Apple. Very vague / arbitrary complaints. This is by far one of the best portable video players ever created. I never owned an iPod (aside from a nano) because I always wanted a PVP with a large widescreen. My sister has an iPod video and I could never imagine watching a movie on there.
Anyway, my only complaint would have to be the 16 GB storage space. It's too small. Other than that, the sleek design, large screen, full safari browser, and youtube functionality has me sold. I'll probably wait for a 32 gig version, though. - JuliusErving, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Honestly, my mistake. It's STILL fine for a screen that size, though.
- fugazied, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Large Touchscreen + Hard drive would have killed the battery I think. Ipod touch being .6mm thicker wouldn't have mattered to most people but if battery life on your 120gb ipod touch with hard drive was 2 hrs I think it would kinda suck.
- exoendo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3if this was python you would be *****.
- mrowlinson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It plays plenty of other stuff, but just short of enough so you to come on here and complain about it.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Why so much apple hate lately?
- cleverboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"Still, factor in the slick interface, elegant Web browser, the beautiful glass display, the seamless integration of the WiFi music store, and the iPod touch is worth the price. No portable media player has ever done this much so easily, or looked so good doing it." - PCMag
Sounds like it. Good job, Apple. - louiedog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3LCARS was lame when people first started making themes out of it and it remains that way today. You might as well make your screensaver the scrolling matrix text while you're at it. The N800 is cool though.
- aaronmcdonald, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4When You see crap like that you relise why you love Apple so much for making such cool products! Thanks HumanRecall you've made me love Apple even more after seeing that!
- pkfx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3if (willingness_to_put_up_with_16_GB_at_a_time) {
if (have_400_dollars_laying_around) {
buy (ipod);
} else {
stfu (everyone_plz);
}
}
//Fixed. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2you can install applications on the ipod touch/iphone pretty easily.
- 0siris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I do recall people doing this to the nano, just by soldering matching flash on top of the originals. Could it be a hoax? I don't remember, but i remember seeing it done.
- Twee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Archos requires you to buy $100 add-ons to gain functionality. Sounds like a scam to me.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2no, they don't
- arono, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I've been thinking about this as well. I'm going to miss being able to skip a track or change the volume by using the clickwheel from outside my pocket.
- JuliusErving, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Sorry, but the fact that it has just about zero internal storage is kind of a negative if you ask me. Also weighs almost twice as much and is 1.5 x as thick as the iPod touch.
- ViperX116, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I would still like to know how the music controls would work if the player is in your pocket or something. Would it be easy/not easy to control? Do I need to look at the screen to touch the right icons?
- spazzcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Its got a browser in it...so you can use those things
- IEatHamburgers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wouldn't a thicker iPod Touch allow for a bigger battery, like that 40-hour one in the 160GB classic?
- sv650touring, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm confused. Is he a Dr. J fanboy?
- TTURabble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I read the part about double clicking the home button to bring up the music controls over any other screen, I hope they update the firmware on the iPhone to include this.
Sounds like a neat little device for the people who don't want the iPhone (ATT contract and whatnot) I'm quickly becoming an apple convert. - FoxOrian, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Er, not a phone. Damnit I'm confused by Nokia now. Classified as an "Internet Appliance"
Okay, I see what you mean. Just not quite so elegant in way of design. -
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is