Apple unveils 64GB iPod touch with faster processor for $399 - Page 4

Like anything, it can be abused. If I type the alphabet over 10,000 times in a post I surely couldnt use the excuse the you shouldnt let me type letters if you are going to police how I use them. That said, I have seen many posts that use the markup text quite effectively, but I wouldnt care if it went away. Though Id personally rather see personal sigs go away. Some people have overly large sigs.



Are you accounting for import taxes, VAT, etc. or just doing a straight comparison from the US price?



It would mean that you wouldnt have your network drop down to the lowest common speed when it connects to the network. You could also use the 5Ghz network if it had 802.11a/n. Apples current solution is the Airport base stations with dual radios so that your PCs can be on 802.11n and your other devices on 802.11g (or 802.11b).

And here I thought they also came with a lap dance for me to film. This world is so cheap!!

I don't understand how the 32 and 64 GB units are "New" models then. What's new? There was a huge difference between the old iPhone 3G and the new 3G s

In 2005, they had two iPod announcements - Sep and Oct. Sep was a nano bump, while Oct had the new iPod video. Before 2005, they had one iPod announcement in Oct. In 2006 and 2008, they had Mac announcements in Oct.

Dude shut up seriously.

If he don't ban you he is a punk.

Either way you are a punk.

At a minimum, Apple said the new ones have faster processors. We'll need to await the tear-down folks to tell us what else.

The main internals seem to be the same as the iPhone 3GS. Id wager that well find a Cortex A8 and PowerVR GPU with 256MB RAM, and it may even be at a higher clock than the 3GS, which will make it a better gaming device.

Ha ha! This rumor site was wrong...the iPod Touch never got a camera, but you ate it up and believed it! Amazing how gullible people can be. They were also wrong about iTunes too (Blu Ray and DVD-ripping...how stupid can some people be?)

The only reason I can see is that using the iPod touch on your home 802.11n network drops it to g speeds.

On the flip side, I believe the 802.11n chips still draw more power than the 802.11g ones, so keeping the touch at g gives it longer battery life.

I'll pass on reaching for the credit card on a new iPod touch.

My wife has a 3 month old touch, but I would have replaced it if there was a camera and video added. As it is there is no reason to spend the money.

Maybe next year. I'll look for a camera on the front (for iChat) as well as one on the back for photos and movies. Would buy a new iPhone for myself if that happened.

Now all I'm waiting for is the new i7 processor for Intel on an iMac.

Actually, it was more than just a "rumor", as there were countless news articles during the course of a few weeks on Google that speculated a Ipod touch with a camera, many of them written by Finance reporters as well as Tech reporters. It wasn't just an Mac fanboy insider rumor. For most people, this upgrade would be expected and logically, a "no brainer". The Iphone and the Ipod touch are nearly identical (with the exceptional of the phone portion), and since the Iphone now has a built in camera/video camera, it would have been the natural evolutionary update for the Ipod touch. But that was not to happen. How difficult would it have been to put a camera on a device that you already have it in in a nearly identical device? This new "update" of more speed gives no tangible reason for current Ipod touch owners to upgrade. It just doesn't make sense. For that, it was indeed a MISTAKE; who ever decided to not include the camera on the Touch did a piss poor job of decision making from a marketing standpoint. Horrendous mistake, Apple.

Is the TDP of the i7s anywhere close to the TDP of the C2Ds used in the current iMacs?

I am as surprised as I am amused over all these teed-off reactions.
First off, though, I have a question: What's the bluetooth for?
I think it'd be nice if they made automatic syncing over it an option.

More on topic, I'd like to share that I'm extremely HAPPY that the Touch does NOT have a camera. Yes, I made a little dance around the room upon this pleasant shocker. I too bought into the rumours and speculations, so imagine my relief.
All I wanted was the 64 gigs, and I got a little processor boost on top of it. Regarding GPS, I'm anxious to see the upcoming TomTom hardware - 'cause if not for navigating in the car, I see no use for GPS on any mobile device. I can actually remember, for instance, the countries in which I take my photos - (using a neat little device called a camera).

Most of the "loyal to Apple" gadget geeks crying wolf, will very likely own a non-Apple phone that includes a camera with better specs than anything Mac have to offer. Personally, I'd like to consider the Touch a semi-'serious' device for its above-decent organizer, e-mail and web apps. To have all that on the world's "funnest" and most user-friendly portable media player, is already quite amazing.
A camera would actually spoil it for me, as do a lot of the apps that I'd never download, because to me they take a bit off the Touch's classiness. The decision to put the instant YouTube clip maker on the Nano, is an excellent one. Let them young 'uns fool around with those - that's why the Nano comes in silly colors, right?

Still, please y'all keep up the whining. It makes the real world seem so bubbly.

Do you have any idea how long it would take to sync 64GB over BT?

Of course I do,
but A. does anyone change 64GB between syncs or do we just tweak?
and B. I was mainly thinking about calendar and contacts and such.

I'm in near tears because Yoko wasn't there. Even worse, no camera on the iPod touch.

64 GB and a camera with a slightly faster processor would have sucked the credit card right out of my wallet.

At least I won't have to TIVO Obama's big speech to watch Apple's event.....

This will cause a blip in the upgrade cycle. But Apple will make up for it in the next upgrade.

I'll second the praise for the Classic.

However, Apple has put themselves into a mind boggling position. In order to convince a nano customer to spend more money they not only have to prove the value of the app store, they have to convince the customer that the radio, camera and pedometer in the nano are of no value. It's possible that those are the very features that attracted her in the first place.

Why would any company put itself in a position where it has to denigrate its own product to sell a more expensive one?
Why would any company put itself in a position where it must insult the intelligence of a potential customer?

I'd be amazed if AAPL shareholders aren't more outraged by such insanity than the posters on this forum. I simply cannot believe Steve Jobs or anyone else with an IQ greater than his shoe size approved this new iPod lineup.

Bingo! Apple never promised anything. Sites like this add fuel to the fire, but many times do hit on the mark.

I really can't see an overwhelming use for a camera, myself. I'd loved the GPS, though, and that would have made the difference for me. I'm leaning toward the Nano, as is, and waiting on the Verizon iPhone rumors to either come to fruition or not. I'm active, so a Nano is looking good, but I won't use the camera on that, either, probably.

Id think WiFi would be better for that since it has a larger area of use and is faster. On top of that, most people liekly dont keep BT on as it drains power just from being turned on, even if there is no data being sent, and do Touch users really need to have contacts and calendars updated instantly like a phone can easily do since it, by design, is in an always on state. It would be great, but there are just too many negatives and very few pros that would appeal to very few people.

My son was saving for a Touch with video camera and when he heard it was only in the Nano, he suggested he order the Touch from the online Apple Store and have it engraved with 'Insert camera here'... He may 'settle' for the Nano...and that's a real feeling...'settling'. I told him to wait until the day after the Zune HD announcement...something's just weird about no 16GB Touch...

Agreed, though I'd be o.k. with automatic wireless non-MobileMe syncing.

What is the BT for then? Headset? GPS receiver pairing? Remotely blending smoothies?

People


Remember Apple gets money back from the cell carriers and the iPhone costs $600 on top of that. (integrated in the monthly price naturally)



One can't expect nearly all the features of the iPhone to be in the iPod Touch (minus the phone circuitry) for a price people are willing to pay all cash up front for.

$199 is the magic number, meaning it's the price point most people are willing to pay and Apple makes the most overall profit. Just like 99¢ is a magic number and the reason the price isn't rounded up is because $199 sounds cheaper than $200, all marketing tricks.

Suppose a price of $549 for a 'iPhone stripped of the phone' isn't what people are willing to pay in any volume worth the trouble for Apple which has to think about making the MOST MONEY overall. So it's a combination of the 'most sales' with the 'most margins' to equal the most money.

It's possible the numbers and the experience of previous sales Apple has had led them to believe it wasn't a good decision to try to sell a $549 iPod Touch with GPS, 64GB of storage, 5 megapixel video camera etc. etc.



Geeks want a device that has everything, but they sure not many will pay $549 for it. I'm sure the sales of the $399 devices are not great.

Right, calendar & contacts are about all BT can do unless you just let it sit there. For me, I might have 100MB of tracks that get shuffled around on every sync. It looks like it would be a 13 minute sync, assuming 1Mbps.

Maybe Apple didn't update the Touch today because they don't have to.

Maybe they are going to wait unti MS releases the Zune and then squish it with "one more thing" like they did with the original Zune when they released the touch.

Would be fun to watch if nothing else

I believe the main reason for the add is for wireless BT headsets using the A2DP that was included with v3.0. I personally would use this if the power efficiency and sound quality was better, but its not good enough to warrant the expense at this time for me.

PS: Before someone says it, Nike+ apparently uses a variant of 802.11 like WiFi, not BT for receiving from the shoe accelerometer.

Assuming you can get BT to work reliably.

It still boggles me that I can't sync over WiFi

The only use for Bluetooth does seem to be for A2DP, as well as a wireless device interface for hardware add-ons.

I'm surprised that more people aren't bothered by headphone cords. It does take power, but not too terribly bad, and the sound quality seems to be good enough for outdoor use.

Apple completely dropped the ball on the new ipod touch. Seriously, what a let down. I have been holding out for months waiting for the new camera/mic equipped units that not only were rumored, but were the only logical next step. So what does Apple do? They give the NANO a video camera and do hardly anything for the Touch. What a miserable fail on Apple's part. I hope the stock goes into the ground. They tout the Touch as some great gaming device. Fine. But it could be that one gadget that you need that can take care of all your multi-media & computing needs on the go without the insane data package price and atrocious "service" from AT&T (a company that everyone is beginning to realize sucks to the core, don't get me started on that one...), but no. Now you still have to carry your camera and/or camcorder along with your music/gaming device. They definitely didn't make the Touch a must-have by any means. What a pathetic joke. Apple: this just might be the beginning of the end for you, you sad, sad fools. I hope you sell no more than 27 new units and make a public apology for not delivering what you KNEW the consumers wanted.

That's the spirit!
Microsoft are hilarious with their anti-Mac ads and most recently their "education" of PC sales personnel
(and people in this thread are accusing Apple of treating us like we're stoopid).

I'll pack some sandwiches and bring my folding chair.

Exactly. That's why i asked about bluetooth.
I have a MobileMe account, but the point of that eludes me when all affected devices are in the house.
Besides that, loads of people do not have MobileMe and need to plug into USB each and every time.

No new iPod touch for me. No iPhone either (ridiculous data/phone plan prices)

BOOOORRRRRRIIIINNNGGGG

Today fell short of expectations on the iPod Touch. In the next few days Apple leadership is going to realize that it dropped a dud. True, we're getting 64GB which is something I looked forward to since i'm out of headroom on my current 32GB. But no camera and still priced at $399? At that price I'll take a 64GB with HD video. Anything less isn't worth it. Great gaming experience? Maybe for obsessives, but I could care less. Instead, let me download and see videos in formats that Apple currently bans.

Given the discrepancy in features, it looks like Apple's trying to give people a reason to own multiple iPods.

They didn't raise the price, did they? It's double the capacity for the same price and much more powerful chips inside too. I can see a video camera being a reasonable upgrade expectation, but HD seems to be a bit much, even the regular iPhone doesn't have HD video recording.

The iPod touch likely has the lowest margin of Apple's products (whereas the iPhone has the highest margin). The 8GB iPhone 3G gets about $400-450 from AT&T, while Apple now sells the 8GB iPod touch for $199. All the iPhone extras, such as the phone circuitry, camera, and GPS, don't add up to even $100 in parts and labor. Apple was aiming for the $199 price point, and likely couldn't reach its acceptable margin if they were to add anything else to it.

(Which of course, leads to the question of how Microsoft is going to sell its 16GB OLED Zune HD for $219? Is it breaking even or losing money on each device sold in order to establish a market presence?)

Some may ask why can't Apple just add the camera to the 32GB and 64GB iPod touch models, which gain some margin by marking up the flash RAM. I think Apple was intending to but couldn't get the quality they wanted due to "technical" problems. (Note the camera on the iPod touch would be either 2MP or 3MP, not VGA like on the nano. And the iPod touch is thinner than the iPhone.) Steve Jobs may have been the one to kill the upgrade when he returned to work.

The iPhone monthly charges are the same as what verizon charges and less than the blackberry tour

Then apple would have to license smb from Microsoft as well and unless you have vista sp2 or windows 7 it's going to take a very long time. Hours and hours

you are so absolutely right - instead of berating Apple for keeping something back for a year why don't we just raise a slight eyebrow at all those who suggested that a camera was in the wings: how many hours before the event was John Gruber describing cameras as "sure thing bets". Hmmm. Thanks to those numpties who've been banging on about this for weeks publishing photos of Touch cases with a hole drilled in them and merrily popping up photos of camera-clad Touch breakdowns.

I've just wasted forty pounds selling off my 2g touch on ebay last week only to find that the new one is, er, a 2g.

May a fly come down and land in the ear of everyone who's lead me up the garden path. And may it stick there for many a year.

Clearly you have no interest in golf, hunting, or hiking.

Egad, I hope not. I don't want this version to get too much larger, just more capable... like the nano.