Did I miss somewhere where the sound quality of the iPod Touch was reviewed?
Read the article again. The sound quality was reviewed. The speaker on the Touch does not compare to the quality of the iPhone, mainly because it is missing a specific speaker output vent. It is better than the piezo speaker on the original, but sounds more tinny than the speaker in the iPhone. It is an improvement, but not quite matching the iPhone speaker.
Read the article again. The sound quality was reviewed. The speaker on the Touch does not compare to the quality of the iPhone, mainly because it is missing a specific speaker output vent. It is better than the piezo speaker on the original, but sounds more tinny than the speaker in the iPhone. It is an improvement, but not quite matching the iPhone speaker.
Not the speaker - the sound through the headphones!
FYI: the photos in page one of the article are distorted (wrong HTML size). Right-click and open in new window to see them accurately, and check page two also. For example, this photo above makes them look thinner than they are, but page two shows the true image:
This was a nice review but by my estimation you where way to soft on Apple on two really important items.
First we have the issue of Blutooth which you rightly pointed out really isn't even implemented on iPhone. The problem as I see it, is that this is a much larger problem than indicated and as such should be stressed as a negative more. Apples wishy washy approach to Blutooth has many wondering just how far they will go in support of the tech. From the standpoint of a developer the lack of Bluetooth severly limits what can be done as far as innovative apps go.
The next issue is the max flash size. Frankly I find it disgusting that Apple Produced a new rev to Touch and thumbed their nose at people wanting higher capacity versions. This is especially the case when it is now obvious that Apple has a source for high capacity flash devices at reasonable price. This reminds me of the AIR boondoggle in that they have focused on form over function. It is almost like they don't know what they are selling here, Touch is much more than an MP3 player thus space is real important. You can chew through a lot of space just with a few games and apps. It is almost like Apple hasn't grasped the fact that they are in the game machine business and don't have the cartridge model to support multiple games on the platform. That is the only practical place to store your games on a flash based device like Touch is on the device. After all of this one has to consider a movie or two on the device. It all adds up to way to little flash.
How about giving some examples of "innovative apps" that would take advantage of Bluetooth? Since the touch is not a phone, adding Bluetooth would be useless. No one would use Bluetooth for data transfer, it is too slow. WiFi, on the other hand, would be great for transfers, and the Touch already offers that feature. I don't think Bluetooth headphones would be that popular because it would be another battery that would go dead. No headphones, no music.
So where is your evidence to prove Apple can get high capacity flash at reasonable prices? With today's economy, no one will be willing to drop $500 or more for a high capacity Touch. Apple still charges $599 for 64 GB flash memory in the MacBook Air. Doesn't sound like they are getting memory at reasonable prices.
You can chew through a lot of space with a few games and apps? You're kidding, right? I have 16 apps/games on my iPhone that use 200 MB! Those hardly make a dent on my 16 GB iPhone, and would be nothing on the 32 GB Touch, even with movies and music. You don't need to keep ALL of them on the Touch at the same time.
People want low prices. If Apple had released a 64 GB Touch, I am sure you would have complained about the price.
Not the speaker - the sound through the headphones!
Ah, you are correct. However, none of the iPods have ever really had significant changes with sound quality, which is probably why they referenced the original reviews instead of mentioning the same thing twice. They stuck with the new features instead.
Aaah, now thats a good review, well detailed and clearly show the difference between iPhone and iPod Touch, before the iPhone 3G and Touch 2G, my friends will say its pointless to own a Touch, now I think they will think twice before saying that .
Although I will still prefer the iPhone 3G anyday, when will it be in Malaysia!!!!, please be this year .
You can, but not out of the box or via an iTunes setting. Air Shaing will allow you mount it as a wireless drive on a LAN. It's still free, I'd get it before it jumps to $7.
Air Sharing is a great little app.
New favorite apps for my touch (in no particular order):
Twitteriffic
Mobile News
Bloomberg
Othello
Aurora Feint
BiiBall
PocketConstitution
Epocrates Rx
Lonely Planet Mandarin
AOL Radio
ITM MidiLab (the coolest thing since MIDI...works with GarageBand!)
I wish it had either GPS or a Camera. And of course more space (64gb)
I'd pay more for these features.
The lack of a GPS option was a dumb decision on Apple's part. Obviously, they want GPS to drive iPhone sales, but it instead has the effect of driving people to Garmin or Tom Tom (and others) instead. Sometimes I'd like to throttle the people making the final product adjustments.
- do you use the craptastic iPod headphones? in which it will sound just as crap as anything else does thru them.
- do you use some kind of arcane "audiophile" equipment that no one can afford or would realistically use on a PORTABLE player?
- what bitrate do you sample to... or do you propose using AAC (which almost no one does)?
and so on, and so on, and so on.
dude it's a portable listening device, generally used by the vast majority of the listening public to listen to lossy frickin mp3s ripped god-knew-how-many-times, whilst the listener is jogging/biking/running/eating/on the loud-assed subway.
Arguing about sound quality on an iPod is about as pointless as those moronic kids who install a 300w stereo system in their beater, everything-rattles-on-it hooptie car.
If you want a great sound experience go shut yourself in a soundproof room and listen to vinyl on your tube amp. To me all digital players playing a lossy format thru earbuds sound the same: fairly meh. Not completely crappy but it for sure isn't the Metropolitan Opera.
this is not, however, stopping me from buying them for their intended use: as a PORTABLE listening device. For use in (typically) noisy environments.
Ah, you are correct. However, none of the iPods have ever really had significant changes with sound quality, which is probably why they referenced the original reviews instead of mentioning the same thing twice. They stuck with the new features instead.
I asked only because they've changed chips in the past which resulted in a downgrade in quality. Check out the diff between Shuffle 1G and 2G- big difference.
iLounge.com has reported that the sound has been improved on this new Touch over the last one as well as the screen image.
Because Steve says so. He giveth and taketh- always leaves you wanting more.
Well there is some truth to that.
The article said "theres not much room for growth in this good product"
so apple (i think) is leaving out GPS, a camera, etc. so they can add them into future options (and retain these or similar price points) to drive sales of the touch for the next few years
interestingly enough I think a Touch with a camera, GPS and wi-fi would function as well as a phone for many people, if there was a skype application, so maybe they are afraid of usurping the iPhone
Why just one photo comparing it with the previous generation?
I thought the graphics were more than competitive for the size, about as good as the PSP or so.
I love my brand new 32 gb Ipod touch. The only warning I can give is wait until the cases come out-- the back scratches very easily and cases aren't yet available!!!
The lack of a GPS option was a dumb decision on Apple's part. Obviously, they want GPS to drive iPhone sales, but it instead has the effect of driving people to Garmin or Tom Tom (and others) instead. Sometimes I'd like to throttle the people making the final product adjustments.
The iPhone isn't simply using GPS. Assisted GPS requires a constant data connection. Which the Touch does not have.
... interestingly enough I think a Touch with a camera, GPS and wi-fi would function as well as a phone for many people, if there was a skype application, so maybe they are afraid of usurping the iPhone
I suspect you are exactly right about this. If that is true then Apple is falling victim to the common impulse to avoid cannibalizing its own products. Maybe this will work but it presents an opportunity to Microsoft, RIM, Google and others who have no qualms about taking a bite out of the iPhone market. I'd rather buy (and develop for) an Apple product like this but Apple has to see that the cell phone provider model will be a vestigial market as bandwidth availability grows exponentially (assuming monopoly power does not succeed in continuing to prevent it).
Comments
Did I miss somewhere where the sound quality of the iPod Touch was reviewed?
Read the article again. The sound quality was reviewed. The speaker on the Touch does not compare to the quality of the iPhone, mainly because it is missing a specific speaker output vent. It is better than the piezo speaker on the original, but sounds more tinny than the speaker in the iPhone. It is an improvement, but not quite matching the iPhone speaker.
Read the article again. The sound quality was reviewed. The speaker on the Touch does not compare to the quality of the iPhone, mainly because it is missing a specific speaker output vent. It is better than the piezo speaker on the original, but sounds more tinny than the speaker in the iPhone. It is an improvement, but not quite matching the iPhone speaker.
Not the speaker
http://images.appleinsider.com/ipodtouch2-review-4.jpg
This was a nice review but by my estimation you where way to soft on Apple on two really important items.
First we have the issue of Blutooth which you rightly pointed out really isn't even implemented on iPhone. The problem as I see it, is that this is a much larger problem than indicated and as such should be stressed as a negative more. Apples wishy washy approach to Blutooth has many wondering just how far they will go in support of the tech. From the standpoint of a developer the lack of Bluetooth severly limits what can be done as far as innovative apps go.
The next issue is the max flash size. Frankly I find it disgusting that Apple Produced a new rev to Touch and thumbed their nose at people wanting higher capacity versions. This is especially the case when it is now obvious that Apple has a source for high capacity flash devices at reasonable price. This reminds me of the AIR boondoggle in that they have focused on form over function. It is almost like they don't know what they are selling here, Touch is much more than an MP3 player thus space is real important. You can chew through a lot of space just with a few games and apps. It is almost like Apple hasn't grasped the fact that they are in the game machine business and don't have the cartridge model to support multiple games on the platform. That is the only practical place to store your games on a flash based device like Touch is on the device. After all of this one has to consider a movie or two on the device. It all adds up to way to little flash.
How about giving some examples of "innovative apps" that would take advantage of Bluetooth? Since the touch is not a phone, adding Bluetooth would be useless. No one would use Bluetooth for data transfer, it is too slow. WiFi, on the other hand, would be great for transfers, and the Touch already offers that feature. I don't think Bluetooth headphones would be that popular because it would be another battery that would go dead. No headphones, no music.
So where is your evidence to prove Apple can get high capacity flash at reasonable prices? With today's economy, no one will be willing to drop $500 or more for a high capacity Touch. Apple still charges $599 for 64 GB flash memory in the MacBook Air. Doesn't sound like they are getting memory at reasonable prices.
You can chew through a lot of space with a few games and apps? You're kidding, right? I have 16 apps/games on my iPhone that use 200 MB! Those hardly make a dent on my 16 GB iPhone, and would be nothing on the 32 GB Touch, even with movies and music. You don't need to keep ALL of them on the Touch at the same time.
People want low prices. If Apple had released a 64 GB Touch, I am sure you would have complained about the price.
Not the speaker
Ah, you are correct. However, none of the iPods have ever really had significant changes with sound quality, which is probably why they referenced the original reviews instead of mentioning the same thing twice. They stuck with the new features instead.
Although I will still prefer the iPhone 3G anyday, when will it be in Malaysia!!!!, please be this year
albeit in polished aluminum characteristic of the iPod line),
That would be "albeit in a stainless steel back, characteristic of the iPod line".
You can, but not out of the box or via an iTunes setting. Air Shaing will allow you mount it as a wireless drive on a LAN. It's still free, I'd get it before it jumps to $7.
Air Sharing is a great little app.
New favorite apps for my touch (in no particular order):
Twitteriffic
Mobile News
Bloomberg
Othello
Aurora Feint
BiiBall
PocketConstitution
Epocrates Rx
Lonely Planet Mandarin
AOL Radio
ITM MidiLab (the coolest thing since MIDI...works with GarageBand!)
YouTube (standard app)
I wish it had either GPS or a Camera. And of course more space (64gb)
I'd pay more for these features.
The lack of a GPS option was a dumb decision on Apple's part. Obviously, they want GPS to drive iPhone sales, but it instead has the effect of driving people to Garmin or Tom Tom (and others) instead. Sometimes I'd like to throttle the people making the final product adjustments.
you simply state objectively how it sounds.
and exactly how DO you do that "objectively"?
- do you use the craptastic iPod headphones? in which it will sound just as crap as anything else does thru them.
- do you use some kind of arcane "audiophile" equipment that no one can afford or would realistically use on a PORTABLE player?
- what bitrate do you sample to... or do you propose using AAC (which almost no one does)?
and so on, and so on, and so on.
dude it's a portable listening device, generally used by the vast majority of the listening public to listen to lossy frickin mp3s ripped god-knew-how-many-times, whilst the listener is jogging/biking/running/eating/on the loud-assed subway.
Arguing about sound quality on an iPod is about as pointless as those moronic kids who install a 300w stereo system in their beater, everything-rattles-on-it hooptie car.
If you want a great sound experience go shut yourself in a soundproof room and listen to vinyl on your tube amp. To me all digital players playing a lossy format thru earbuds sound the same: fairly meh. Not completely crappy but it for sure isn't the Metropolitan Opera.
this is not, however, stopping me from buying them for their intended use: as a PORTABLE listening device. For use in (typically) noisy environments.
apple should really start advertising the ipod touch as a gaming device.
No need. The top-selling apps in the App Store are already games. The market decided.
Any thoughts on why the camera continues to be absent?
Really?
Because it's not an iPhone.
Any thoughts on why the camera continues to be absent?
Because Steve says so. He giveth and taketh- always leaves you wanting more.
Ah, you are correct. However, none of the iPods have ever really had significant changes with sound quality, which is probably why they referenced the original reviews instead of mentioning the same thing twice. They stuck with the new features instead.
I asked only because they've changed chips in the past which resulted in a downgrade in quality. Check out the diff between Shuffle 1G and 2G- big difference.
iLounge.com has reported that the sound has been improved on this new Touch over the last one as well as the screen image.
Because Steve says so. He giveth and taketh- always leaves you wanting more.
Well there is some truth to that.
The article said "theres not much room for growth in this good product"
so apple (i think) is leaving out GPS, a camera, etc. so they can add them into future options (and retain these or similar price points) to drive sales of the touch for the next few years
interestingly enough I think a Touch with a camera, GPS and wi-fi would function as well as a phone for many people, if there was a skype application, so maybe they are afraid of usurping the iPhone
Why just one photo comparing it with the previous generation?
I thought the graphics were more than competitive for the size, about as good as the PSP or so.
I love my brand new 32 gb Ipod touch. The only warning I can give is wait until the cases come out-- the back scratches very easily and cases aren't yet available!!!
The lack of a GPS option was a dumb decision on Apple's part. Obviously, they want GPS to drive iPhone sales, but it instead has the effect of driving people to Garmin or Tom Tom (and others) instead. Sometimes I'd like to throttle the people making the final product adjustments.
The iPhone isn't simply using GPS. Assisted GPS requires a constant data connection. Which the Touch does not have.
Well there is some truth to that.
... interestingly enough I think a Touch with a camera, GPS and wi-fi would function as well as a phone for many people, if there was a skype application, so maybe they are afraid of usurping the iPhone
I suspect you are exactly right about this. If that is true then Apple is falling victim to the common impulse to avoid cannibalizing its own products. Maybe this will work but it presents an opportunity to Microsoft, RIM, Google and others who have no qualms about taking a bite out of the iPhone market. I'd rather buy (and develop for) an Apple product like this but Apple has to see that the cell phone provider model will be a vestigial market as bandwidth availability grows exponentially (assuming monopoly power does not succeed in continuing to prevent it).