digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Tested: iPod Touch Screen Inferior to the iPhone's Screen [Pics]

gizmodo.com — The iPhone and iPod Touch are presumed to have the same screen quality. But they don't, according to some testing and reader feedback we did today. The iPod Touch's screen turns black areas somewhat greyish, washed out shadow detail, with absolute blacks appearing shimmery.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mentol, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24that sounds nice, but I thought they had the same displays ?
    • pinchies, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Evidentially not! This is why you dont buy cheap lcds.
    • epyon180, on 10/10/2007, -13/+26Honestly, anyone who buys the iPod touch is getting ripped off. For $100 more I get a 2MP camera, bluetooth, PDA functionality, a good phone, a better screen (apparently), and an external speaker. The only reason I would see someone buying the touch over the iPhone is AT&T, other than that it doesn't make any sense.
      • yensed, on 10/10/2007, -9/+35And you only obligate yourself to a contract and sacrifice 8GB of storage.
        • windohs, on 10/10/2007, -16/+2hm...have you been sleeping under a rock lately?
          iphone can be unlocked for use on about any GSM carrier (PREPAID SIM's ANYONE? NO CONTRACTS), and if you don't want to use it as a phone you can use the computer activation haxorz
          • KibibyteBrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12The problem is both of those are hacks. Many people do not want to use an unsupported product. And beyond that even, these hacks are not very time tested yet...who knows if they will stop working with or without apple intervention. Hacks are nice, and as a geek I love them, but you can never use a hack for product A to justify product A in the open market...its just a bit absurd.
          • pak314, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Does the iphone with the hacked carrier support the visual voicemail feature with AT&T?
        • epyon180, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17Notice how I said "For $100 more" because I was comparing the 8 gig ipod touch to the 8 gig iPhone. I'm also pretty sure that I mentioned the AT&T part of the equation. Even after reading your "great" arguments for getting the ipod touch over the iPhone, I still think I am right.
        • Dotdotdot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12$100 before mandatory contract of two years with an additional $20 to your plan, which is $240. So, an 8 GB iPhone costs $340 more than an 8GB iPod Touch.
        • epyon180, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@ Dotdotdot

          Are you saying that I wouldn't have cell phone bills without the iPhone? I was playing close to $80 a month with my old smart phone so if I follow your logic, I am saving money by getting the iPhone right?

          This is exactly the kind of ignorant arguing that pissed me off on digg, of course it sounds really nice comparing $340 to $100 throwing out the little fact that other cell phones cost money too.
      • whistlerpro, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11and you get a thinner device, and it's international. Perfect for students.
      • MikeOSX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Well obviously that's the only reason. The phone functionality is the only major difference.
      • Ninjab3ar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8dont forget the mandatory data plan
        • epyon180, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You mean the one I had to pay more for on my old Treo, yeah I remember that one.
      • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's not really 100 dollars difference. You're effectively subsidizing the cost of the iPhone during the two years of the contract. Works out to alot more than 100 dollars.
        • epyon180, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You are exactly right, except for one little thing. Anyone who buys an iPod Touch HAS A CELL PHONE PLAN. Unless someone is choosing to get an iPod touch over a cellphone (which isnt gonna happen) the iPhone turns out to be a better deal.
      • rudy23, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12 years contract. payment of data and voice over 2 years.

        congratulations on making yourself look like an idiot.
        • epyon180, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I have to thank you for being an even bigger idiot first. Because according to your logic, anyone who buys an iPod Touch magically doesn't have to pay cell phone bills anymore. I will go ahead and make this simple for you. If I am in the market for a smart-phone ( or even a regular cheap phone for that matter) and a great iPod, Should I spend $300 for the Touch plus another $100 for the phone (plus the minimum $40 a month plan and contract), or should I get the iPhone and get all that functionality plus more for $400 in a single device, with better battery life.

          I am giving you a lot of credit hear too, if I was gonna compare those numbers with something like a Treos' (which I had before my iPhone ) it would turn out to be close to $80 for the plan and even more for the actual unit.
      • jemman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Because you already have a cell phone and want a killer ipod with wi-fi.
    • fluidfoundation, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5SOUNDWAVE, SUPERIOR, iPhone Touch, INFERIOR
    • phoomp, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3It wouldn't be the first time that Apple has crippled one product to make a more expensive product look better.
    • sbgskl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's why the article description says they're PRESUMED to be the same, you stupid *****.
  • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+205And yet, PC Mag reported the opposite.
    • longbow486, on 10/10/2007, -28/+4who reads PC mag anymore?
    • hifiDesign, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Yeah, PC Mag are really Jobsian sycophants at heart.
      I keed, I keed!
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4I thought everyone knew that PCMag has become the latest Apple shill magazine!
    • enchantedsky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9My theory: It is common for electronics manufacturers to use *multiple sources* for parts.

      Proof of concept: Palm Tungsten E. It was estimated about 50% of Palm devices of this model had dim screens made by Sharp. The other 50% were Sony made screens, which were a lot brighter, but had a bluish tint to the screen. People preferred the latter screen .

      So basically, Apple has different companies making the iPod Touch screen.........PC Mag got one like the iPhone, this website got something else.

      Interesting, theory, yah?
      • miniboss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My theory. PC Mag likes getting cool Apple products early.
  • pinchies, on 10/10/2007, -30/+1Lol, the quality on the touch-screen (gettit?) is as bad as the one on my Tungsten T3 (palm), and coincidentally, is at the same resolution... Perhaps the touch LCD is also made by SHARP electronics. This may force me not to get a "Touch" - To view movies with decent blacks I have to tilt the screen!!
  • jazzmann04, on 10/10/2007, -19/+2Not surprised by this at all. The whole point of the iPod touch is to hopefully one day push you over the edge to getting an iPhone, which is most likely going to outlive iPods once Flash storage starts taking off.
    • robotsongs, on 10/10/2007, -7/+43People have been saying "...once flash storage starts taking off" for 10 years now. I'm sorry, but by the time you can get 160G on flash for a portable unit, the marketplace is going to look VERY different and none of this will matter.
      You have an easy equation:
      You want storage= hard drive
      You want convenience= flash
      If file sizes keep getting bigger, like they have been since the dawn of computing, flash is never going to be the most optimal way to carry huge amounts of data.
      • andyduncan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Are you talking about Flash versus a 3.5" drive? 2.5" drive? 1.8" drive? 1" drive? 0.75" drive? because flash took over the last two from a storage/dollar/cubic-inch metric about a year ago. Flash has already taken off. Do they even make 0.75/1" drives anymore? you honestly think that won't happen at the larger sizes? It's not about total storage capacity, it never was. It's about capacity in a given size for a given price.
  • leetleo, on 10/10/2007, -16/+84I'd rather have an iPhone anyway. Why would I want to go from an 80gb ipod to a 16gb one?
    • GunbladeVIII, on 10/10/2007, -22/+18Okay, if you'd rather have an iPhone, why are you going from 80 GB to an even smaller 8 GB?
      • InsaneMachine, on 10/10/2007, -4/+31because it's a phone as well, and you can use it for other stuff too.
      • badnewsblair, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I currently have the first run of the 5th Gen. iPod. I got a 60GB and I have a good 20GB leftover. I find that I have a lot of stuff that I could definitely do without (old tv shows being the biggest). I have about 12GB of straight up music, but I'd gladly trade for an iPhone to:

        1. Get rid of Verizon.
        2. Get rid of my god awful Verizon'd down version of the RAZR
        3. Drop one of the 4 items I carry around daily (iPod, phone, wallet, keys)
        • darkane, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13I sincerely hope that you're not expecting better service from AT&T. You will be -very- disappointed.
        • drakenlot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You would rather have AT&T than Verizon? Man, they must really suck.

          PS. Don't have Verizon and I'm aware they unlocked the IPhone, but you still need to sign up with AT&T when you get the phone.

          PPS. Why is it that when I originally post a comment, the enter spaces are way out of whack?
          • Razster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Went from at&t cingular to Verizon and I can honestly say Verizon is 100x better than at&t service.
            cingular is horrible altogether!

            I went with the enV and enjoy the features.
            Granted I'm limited with my 2gb stick, still I like it and it has better service than my POS razr I had from cingular.
          • Hamletlere, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What exactly do you mean by "you still need to sign up with AT&T when you get the phone"?

            I was originally wanting an iPhone without the phone, and was hoping that's what the iPod Touch would be. When I saw how crippled Apple was making the Touch, I did some investigating and decided to go with the 8GB iPhone.

            Walked into the Apple store three days ago and bought it. No signing up with AT&T there. Brought it home and while iTunes wants you to activate through AT&T, I used open source software to activate it instead. Worked fine with no phone service (what I originally wanted, although the YouTube app didn't work either, which they now have a workaround for but I haven't installed).

            Since I already had Cingular service as a GoPhone plan (relatively few minutes, no data or SMS), I decided to swap out the SIM cards of the two phones and reactivate the iPhone with that SIM. Worked like a charm, and now I have cheap phone service through my iPhone as well (no data service except at WiFi hotspots, of course).

            Now that they have unlocked the iPhone via software, I have the option of signing up with T-Mobile (the only other GSM phone service provider I am aware of in the United States).

            Overall, I am VERY pleased with my purchase. The mobile web browser is the best I have ever seen, and everything else works as advertised.
        • eclipxe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Even an unlocked iPhone can't be used with Verizon (or Sprint). Two different cell technologies
    • insinuate, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Exactly the reason I won't be picking one up.
    • Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I suppose for the inverse reasons that I will be going from a 4Meg iPod Mini to a Touch.
      • dreesemonkey, on 10/10/2007, -16/+54GB, n00b.

        I'd upgrade too if I could only fit one song on it!
        • itzac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4What song do you need on an iPod besides Stairway?!
          • typobox43, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1If you're trying to fit Stairway in 4 MB, you're encoding it at a totally unlistenable bitrate. (And I mean something like 64kbps.)
    • MacGeekGuy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Well in my case, the iPod touch is perfect only because I'd love an iPhone but I'm already stuck in a 2 year contract with another carrier and don't feel like dealing with unlock shenanigans. I want the browser, the ipod, the wi-fi and AT&T can keep their service. :)
    • ahawks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I said the same thing at first, and then I did a test.

      I looked at my music library. I have 12gb of music total. That would fit in 8gb with room to spare for video.

      I decided to push it farther, and made 2 playlists:
      1) manual playlist called "not for ipod" where I dragged in all the music I really never listen to on the go (DDR sound track, video game music, anime soundtracks, most classical, jazz, etc).
      2) "For ipod" smart playlist, which is all music NOT in the "not for ipod" playlist.

      Know what I found? I only have ~5gb of music that is actually suitable for listening on the go.

      Using flash gives the product a longer lifetime (hard drive is the most likely failure point), and provides a longer battery life.

      Try the same, you might be surprised. I was very much against the small storage space before I did this test.

      You can enhance this by adding a second smart playlist called "not for ipod2" that simply matches any songs rated
      • ahawks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Digg mangled my comment due to the less than symbol.

        The second "not for ipod" list would match any songs with 1 or 2 stars.

        Also, I'd rather have an ipod than iphone because I don't want to be tied to AT&T for the life of the product.
      • tiberone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"I have 12gb of music total. That would fit in 8gb with room to spare for video."

        I still don't get that part, but I think I understand the idea here..
        • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1maybe he meant the 16 gig model.
  • Mtbeaver, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2Mmm sounds somewhat dodgey.
  • adml_shake, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4hopefully this is fixed next year when I pick one up.
    • surfing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't buy the first release of anything.
  • habbofresh, on 10/10/2007, -17/+1in b4 cheapass whine of self-entitlement
  • thrallie, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2this is a false post. First of all, the touch might need some tuning. I'm sure there will be a way in the future to tune the screen. Secondly, it's compressed pictures taken by a camera. And the first picture, the difference isn't that bad. They do use the same screen I believe.
  • jericko, on 10/10/2007, -22/+3Not to bash Apple, but do people know there are other products out there besides IPODs? Some of them are even better!
    • Bigcat151, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11I don't like your ruse
      • sneakerelph, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2My what?
        • Bigcat151, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Your ruse...your cunning attempt to trick me into thinking there is something better than an ipod.
    • AronT, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Too bad most of the "better" products don't work with Macs... I would have bough a Zen Vision:M before a 5G iPod - but alas; no Mac support! And I'll be damned before I'll install Windows just to use an mp3 player.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, Aron, the iPod doesn't work with Linux. And I'm not installing Windows just to use an MP3 player! I just got a Cowon D2. Just plug it in, it appears as an external flash drive, you can drag and drop songs, videos, files, flash games, etc.
    • HyperJack, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Why do people always say:
      "Not to bash *company name* but *insert bashing comment against company*"
      I don't see the logic behind it!
      • TheHydrogens, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2That wasn't bashing it all. It was a fact followed by an opinion.
      • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Wow you ***** apple whore. Giving an opinion about products other than apple's is certainly no bash.
  • rowlodge, on 10/10/2007, -7/+23cost as much as an iphone, dont get the strategy behind it.
    • Yareking, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4money !
    • jkoke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11With twice the space
    • unbreakable, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18No 2 Year contract.
      >cost as much as an iphone, dont get the strategy behind it.
    • RadicalEdward, on 10/10/2007, -5/+50yearly cost:
      8gb touch: 299
      8gb iphone ~1200
    • itzac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They can sell it in countries they don't sell the iPhone in yet.
    • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5to a lot of people, the iPhone is still not enough to make people jump to AT&T. hell, a lot of people have some deal through their job, or maybe their whole family is on another carrier. there also seems to be people that dislike AT&T, or don't get decent (any?) coverage. there are are actually 2 states in the US that have zero AT&T coverage. some people want a tiny or effectively disposable cellphone. there are a lot of places i got with a cellphone that i don't take my iPod. my phone was about $100 and in my mind it'll be done in 2 -3 years. they are usually so beat up they are junk. my iPod is almost 2 years old and it's good as new.

      everyone in my family is on Verizon, and while we all have our own accounts, we can call each other 24/7 and not burn minutes. i'm no super-fan of verizon, but it is one more thing on a list of reasons i won't change carriers just to have an iPhone.
      • frogpelt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That's why CDMA is still alive even though GSM is better. Because CDMA is everywhere and the GSM network is not everywhere and especially not 3G.
    • loganisamonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Step 1: Make the iPhone
      Step 2: Limit the iPhone to just AT&T
      Step 3: Plan a special iPod event.
      Step 4: Release an iPhone without the phone and call it the iPod touch.
      Step 5: Profit?!??
  • DanMcScience, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Interesting. Although, the first image shows the movies on different frames. There is something in the bottom left corner on one and not the other. Why don't they use still images?
  • minorthreat, on 10/10/2007, -13/+83come on... did anyone watch that video??

    what are we supposed to do?? OMG the ipods screen is AWFUL!! Im gonna run out an buy an iphone now? The resolution looked the same to me. How about you try adjust your video brightness levels? Regardless of how much you want to bitch about you video ipod, it sure has hell beats your 1985 walkmand doesnt it?
    • Yareking, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1ipod touch is better than a 1940 turn table... lol
      • drakenlot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4That's iffy, since 1940 turn tables still work. How much do you want to bet the iPhone/iPod doesn't work after 10 yrs?
        • Disjunto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5who cares if it works, when it is obsolete and useless
    • Phirenzic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32Wait, you mean the screen quality isn't absolutely identical? This is outrageous! I demand a $100 gift certificate from Apple!
  • mpeters13, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2diggmirror? i can't get the page to load.
    • Disjunto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7replace digg.com with duggmirror.com in ur address bar?
    • frogpelt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Gizmodo's servers can handle digg traffic.

      Maybe it's your dial-up.
  • DeadHerring, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I get that on my MacBook, with blacks almost looking 'negative' when the screen is viewed with it facing slightly upwards.
    • crushfan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Cool.
    • wush, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The 13" MacBook screen is simply low quality - I say that as an owner.
  • digitizit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+46One thing I see wrong with the test is that "We took these photos with auto-brightness off, both devices set to 50% brightness". I doubt these devices are calibrated to be the same. You can go out now and buy two LCD displays, set their brightness and colors to the same settings and get vastly different results. I would bet that if you adjust the brightness settings on there, that you can get the exact same picture quality.
    • BlackKnight6, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2That only works to their argument, that the iPod's and iPhone's displays are not the same...
      • doublsh0t, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1no it doesn't. their argument is that the displays are inferior.
    • itzac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I agree. It's probably just variation in the manufacturing. They likely do use the same part, and you can probably find samples that, with the same settings again, would produce the exact opposite result. In other words, it's a quality control problem at the LCD manufacturer.

      The other possibility is that they moved to a cheaper part for the iPod Touch and are going to start manufacturing the iPhone with the cheaper part as well. I'm sure we'll soon find out.
  • Calcularius, on 10/10/2007, -10/+9And silly me thought I could just walk into an Apple Store and look at them for myself.
    Thx gawd 4 teh interwebs!!!
    • tmslak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Not everyone has a local apple store, noob.
  • starexplorer, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2here's how the ipod touch works (from HowStuffWorks):

    http://digg.com/gadgets/How_the_iPod_Touch_Works
  • chance2002iu, on 10/10/2007, -17/+10Is it me or did anyone else notice some inconsistencies with the first photo (the one with girl)?
    Things that are the same:
    - The time of day
    - The amount of time into the clip
    - The time remaining on the clip
    - interface stuff
    - WiFi strength

    Things that are different:
    - red umbrella is in the bottom one
    - the bottom one has a longer stem for the yellow glowy thing.
    - iPod vs AT&T in the corner
    - Reception bars in one
    - Battery life
    - dot near battery

    something seems off to me.
    • dmurray14, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Did you even read the title? One is an IPOD, hence the ipod, the other is an IPHONE, hence the AT&T logo. Wow.
      • chance2002iu, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1yes i read the title and know what is being compared. i just pointed out all the differences for completeness. the first two differences are the most important are what bother me. the rest was just me playing photo hunt.
        • BlackKnight6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why does it bother you? You are acting like this was "photoshopped" or something. The interface is going to differ slightly because one is the iPhone and one is the iPod Touch. Seems more like a fanboy shooting in the dark...
    • ThatsUnpossible, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Both are at the same time into the movie -- measured in seconds. Now, how many frames are in a second of this movie? Probably 22-30, depending on the format. That would explain how they could look so different, if the camera was panning at that time.
    • althanis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9You are a ***** idiot. Read the post.
  • stuartpetty, on 10/10/2007, -10/+9I was about to buy one as well, maybe I should get a zune instead?? any zune owners out there? there must be at least 300 by now!!!!
    • Alegoo92, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I owned one for a week: hated the Zune software/syncing so much I couldn't take it.

      Slick interface though.
    • brianbennett, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5^^ Ditto. I got a woot.com Zune. It actually a great device but the software is painful to use... I remembered why I vowed never to buy a DAP that isn't a USB Mass Storage (UMS) device... same reason I won't buy an iPod.
      • DanH, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14um, the iPod IS a USB mass storage device, genius.
      • directive0, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9You're right, but I think he means drag and drop music syncing, Dan.
      • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8a) you can use an ipod an an external harddrive
        b) i don't "sync" my ipod with anything, i drag and drop what i want on it
        c) lol @ the zune
    • moocow1452, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Zune is okay, just don't split you heart open and share it with a deceased friend .
    • DeFex, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1thats because the software is made by Microsoft. they no longer know how to make anything which is not dysfunctional and bloated.
      I think their software engineers spend most of the time in meetings saying "tipping point" and "paradigm" and showing pie charts.
  • kidwei, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18I actually have an ipod touch and I can tell you that this is a serious issue. I didn't pay too much attention to it last night because of the thick RDF from opening a new toy. But looking at it today, the blacks are hideous, and it's just about impossible to find any acceptable viewing angle on any video/picture that isn't bright all the way through. I'm disappointed Apple cheaped out on this display. Hopefully they'll make it right. I'm gonna go talk to a "genius" about it tonight.
    • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Turn down the brightness manually and see if that helps - the auto-brightness might just be a little too bright for your personal tastes.
      • kidwei, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I did try various brightness settings. Even on the lowest setting, the blacks levels are terrible.
    • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sounds like Apple are sourcing the screens from different manufacturers and put the nice one in the iPhone.
  • nace33, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8mmm Compressed video for quality determinations? Come on. It's the same screen.
    • buggu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The iPhone/Touch cannot run any lossless video formats, so there is no other way of comparison. Besides, since the content that is going to be played on both devices is compressed anyway, your argument is moot especially since its the exact same file on the two different devices.
  • bjs3171, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2uh, normally you link the title to the article you're talking about. not to some ***** about getting your 100 dollar rebate for the phone.
  • 3amboo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1fake
  • Minosha, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3How does everyone have one already :(
    • ZebraCrew, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1good question. i went to the apple store yesterday and as i walked in i heard an employee say they didn't even have any display models yet.
  • gaijintendo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I have seen this exact same thing before with macbook pro displays suggesting that newer MBPs were less effective - the simple fact is - at close range it is impossible to have the exact same angle on the two screens while filming/taking photos. Videos are of no real use. You may find that the ipod appears better if placed in the upper position etc.
    As a result we have to trust the reviewer's eyes here.
  • Kmack928, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1HOLY ***** A HALF SECOND DELAY!

    thats totally not worth the lesser price and not having to use AT&T.
  • HornyGoat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8How can some of you claim to have an iPod touch if the release date is the 28th September?
    • vandy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5the ipod touch is actually already available. just call your local apple store, though they are probably sold out. all 4 of mine were.
    • patw85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My bestbuy got them today
  • kriminalintent, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Correct me if im wrong but by the black to white range image, They are trying to show the ipodtouch can't even show Black at all? When this one clearly can and darkly.

    http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/touchfactorymenu/2588649
    • BlackKnight6, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ok, people here need to learn what contrast is as a performance measure for displays. Contrast is the ability to simultaneously display the brightest white and the blackest black. Notice how the white looks dim as hell in the pic? It is displaying the black fine but now the white sucks. That is the issue with the Touch compared to the iPhone. The iPhone's contrast is clearly superior to the Touch's and seems very angle dependent (Usually an inferior LCD panel).
  • kriminalintent, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Black looking okay on here.
    http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/touchfactorymenu/2588697
  • exomni, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm going to call ***** on this one.

    If anything, this is just a newer model of screen that is inferior to the LAUNCH iPhones. I bet you the iPhones and touch iPods will continue using the same screens, though the screens may change during production cycles.
  • MindTrigger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's entirely possible that Apple is using more than one manufacturer for their screens, and one may be of lesser quality than another. It's also possible that some people are getting defective screens that are not displaying as well as they should be. This is hardly evidence that the screen on the iphone is "better" than the ipod.
  • thesoze, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2bitch bitch bitch.. Apple Phagboyz matnra!
    • Calcularius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1using 'ph' for 'f' is sooo gay.
      you must be a homosexual.
  • DanH, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1epic fail.
  • whistlerpro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Here's hoping Gizmodo got a dodgy unit.
  • ivankj7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1C'mon! it can be just the angle at which the picture is taken... try putting the iphone above the iPod... do it! and post the results... complete BS... they are the same...
  • atomicknuckles, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3i got a touch this morning and so did one of my co-workers. we compared it to another persons iPhone and our screens have a bit better color and contrast.

    for what its worth, i find the PCmag review to be true.
  • zupatl770, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1My Touch renders black just fine. Bought 4 hours ago.
  • TennisElbow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Does anyone know what movie that was? I don't recognize it at all.
  • Gymkata, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I can comfirm that they are starting to use crappier screens now - My iPhone has the same problems as the ones they mention, and I just bought it a week ago. I returned 2 units, but all had the same problem. Some worse than others!

    I am wildly disappointed by this. I compared to 2 launch phones, and many in-store sample models. The difference is very clear.
  • rusty182004, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2From the PC Mag review. Sounds like inconsistent quality more than anything, not uncommon during early production runs...
    ___
    The video experience on the touch is nearly identical to the one on the iPhone, and the same can be said of viewing photos, with one difference. At full brightness the iPod touch looks a tad better, with deeper, darker color saturation. This is odd, because Apple claims they have the same 480-by-320-resolution screen with 163 pixels per inch. Clearly, there is something slightly different, but it detracts very little from the iPhone to say that the touch looks a little better in the color department. In fact, this may just be a standard variation in manufacturing.
  • directive0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Has anyone received a touch order via the online apple store, or are all of these reports coming from people who picked them up at physical brick and mortar locations?
  • CamperBob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Actually, there are at least two different LCD types in production on the iPhone, one of which apparently looks quite a bit better than the other. Various Apple boards like MacRumours have threads discussing it. Sounds like at least some of the iPod Touches are being made with the lower-quality LCD.
  • edwartica, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0They adjusted the brightness, but I see no mention of them trying to color correct the screen.
    Not that I care, I think Iphones and Ipod touches are heavy and cumbersome and waaaaay too expensive.
    • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2want to share music for 3 plays with me?

      p.s. - it's iPod and iPhone, not Ipod - what are you ***** 60 years old? how did you find the internets?
    • HypocriteDigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You care enough to waste your time posting about it dumbass.
  • shahrum, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3WTF is up with the ad for cleanishappy.com showing naked butts?! NSFW!!
    • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Oh no, a buttcrack! Is that worse than a nipple?

      How Victorian we have become.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No. We haven't become Victorian. We've made great strides away from Victorianism, but we're not completely free of its moralism yet.
    • 15monkeys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If I wanted to see ass, I'd be at another site.
  • xxdesmus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I picked up an 8GB iPod Touch today (I canceled my pre-order), and I gotta say just first impressions:

    1. it's freakishly thing
    2. the shiny aluminum back was a stupid idea, it's smudged to hell after 30 seconds of use.
    3. the screen looks pretty nice, but as Giz says, not quite as nice as the iPhone's screen.
    4. the headphone jack is not recessed
    5. No dock is included, just the little adapter part (and the sync cable). Not a big deal, but kind of annoying
    6. No cases are currently available for the iPod Touch just yet...the guy at the store said "soon".
  • TommyBoy919, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1The Touch is utterly worthless until they get some real storage space. The "Classic" doesn't warrant an upgrade from a 5G and the Touch is such a step backwards in capacity that it's almost a joke. The iPhone would be worthwhile if its wireless Internet tech wasn't from 5 years ago. It also needs to support push email. I'm very disappointed in Apple recently. I thought for certain that the Touch would offer a minimum of 80Gb but stopped in my tracks when I saw the mind-blowingly idiotic decision to go only with Flash memory. No thanks, Apple. I'll wait for something worthwhile.
    • alexra, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0i got an ipod classic, and yes there are some upgrades, its so much better than the 5gen ipod, i know i had one
    • ut2k4king, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The iPod touch is flash based for good reason: better battery life, longer overall life/health as opposed to HDDs, and faster read/write speeds. The lower power of flash memory makes it possible FOR THEM TO HAVE DECENT BATTERY LIFE WHEN USING A TOUCHSCREEN AND THE iPhone OS. The more sophisticated OS DEMANDS more power than the iPods simple os with a few flashy graphics. Better CPU, 128 mb of RAM, and a touchscreen with power outputted to headphones.
    • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Have fun with a hard drive. Flash is the future.
  • dm33, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Lame. LCD displays are very sensitive to viewing angle. The early pictures aren't looking at both devices at the same angle.
    The video clip is a disturbing scene. Why would someone pick that for a short test. People are sick.
  • ramsinks.com, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Cool video, can't wait to get my touch.
    w00t~

    Just received the new nano RED.
    wow, how tight. The wife will love it.
    ;)
  • fibreoptix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Weird I've read somewhere that it's the oppostie... Hmmm
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.