or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iPod touch 4G speed, camera, display measured against iPhone 4
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPod touch 4G speed, camera, display measured against iPhone 4

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
Apple's latest iPod touch update has been given a direct comparison to the iPhone 4, with new videos that demonstrate the speed, display, and video-taking quality of each device.

A trio of videos were posted this week by letemsvetemapplem.eu, which compare the iPhone 4 and fourth-generation iPod touch, as well as the iPhone 3GS and iPad. The iPhone 4, latest iPod touch and iPad all sport Apple's custom A4 processor, though the iPhone 4 has twice the RAM as the 256MB found in the iPod touch and iPad.

But in a comparison of startup times, the iPad was the clear winner, with a full startup achieved in just 19.04 seconds. Next was the fourth-generation iPod touch, which took 26.40 seconds to start, followed by the iPhone 4 at 28.64 seconds. Last year's iPhone 3GS started in 32.80 seconds.

A side-by-side comparison of the 720p video cameras on both the iPhone 4 and fourth-generation iPod touch was also conducted. In the videos, the iPod touch camera has a darker contrast than the video shot with the iPhone 4.

Finally, the most obvious disparity between the two devices is the display. Though the new iPod touch packs a high-resolution "Retina Display" packing the same 326 pixels per inch as the iPhone 4, the iPod touch screen does not have the same in-plane switching technology found in Apple's smartphone.

When viewed from sharp angles, the iPod touch display has distorted colors, while the iPhone 4 remains accurate. This is thanks to the IPS technology in the LCD display.

IPS technology was developed by Hitachi in 1996 to improve viewing angles and color reproductions on screens. Its first appearance in Apple's line of iOS devices came earlier this year, when the iPad was introduced.
post #2 of 33
I gotta say, I like the wider angle of view and the much sharper, more stable, contrasty, saturated image of the iPod Touch video more. Are we sure they didn't get that backward? I heard that the iPhone was supposed to be the one with faster focusing and wider angle.
post #3 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I gotta say, I like the wider angle of view and the much sharper, more stable, contrasty, saturated image of the iPod Touch video more. Are we sure they didn't get that backward? I heard that the iPhone was supposed to be the one with faster focusing and wider angle.

IP4 video looks overexposed compared to iPod. But iPod white balance looks a bit off (a bit more magenta). I think if you could dial down video on IP4 a bit when shooting it'll be great.
post #4 of 33
Couple statements in this article are not correct

- Apple adopted IPS panel starting with the first aluminum 24inch iMac. Apple didn't market IPS until they unveiled the current generation of iMac. In their current lineup, iMac/iPad/iPhone uses IPS.

- The video difference between iPhone and iPod Touch is not much. you don't say "dark contrast". While video is a little darker in iPod Touch, I actually think it has a HIGHER contrast. Video from iPhone looks washed out.

I would like to have IPS on touch but I guess it's a cost cutting thing. I hope the color accuracy would be good (as demonstrated in current Macbook Pros, Apple can do great color even without IPS).
post #5 of 33
At first I thought I liked the iPhone 4 video better because it looked brighter....but as I watched it, I realized I preferred the iPod touches video quality alot more. The color saturation was nicer. There was no jiggle or jello effect when panning, and I liked the wider angle view of the iPod more.

All in all, I think the new touch rocks. Can't wait to get one....but I'm waiting until the rubber cases for it come out. So far the Apple stores here in NYC don't have any.
post #6 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I gotta say, I like the wider angle of view and the much sharper, more stable, contrasty, saturated image of the iPod Touch video more. Are we sure they didn't get that backward? I heard that the iPhone was supposed to be the one with faster focusing and wider angle.

The iPhone has a high-res camera, 2592x1936, making it great for still shots. For HD video (which is 1280x800) I’m led to believe it uses only the center of the sensor. Essentially, that crops the video view to a smaller angle than the iPhone 4’s still-shot view. (Which I believe is compensated for a little by the iPhone 4 camera having a wider FOV than previous iPhones. But don’t quote me.)

The iPod Touch, on the other hand, has a smaller/thinner, lower-res camera, which doesn’t take the iPhone 4’s great stills. But it makes sense then that it would use the whole sensor for video, giving a larger FOV.

I do like that video coming from the Touch! But I find the iPhone 4’s video still looks amazing for most purposes, and I take still shots much more than I take videos. (Stills are great on the iPhone 4.)

But the Touch is a great device (and a LOT cheaper). It’s nice that those users get such good video recording.

iPhone 4 users might want to use the front camera sometimes for video too: no viewfinder, but lower pixel size might mean less wobble in situations where that looks bad. And definitely means less storage space! 640x480 is about DVD quality after all—not half bad. I’d like to see tests with the front cameras just for completeness.
post #7 of 33
Comparisons of startup time don't in any way reflect usage results. SSD's tout this a ton, but really, how often do you start these devices?
post #8 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopuschen View Post

Couple statements in this article are not correct

- Apple adopted IPS panel starting with the first aluminum 24inch iMac. Apple didn't market IPS until they unveiled the current generation of iMac. In their current lineup, iMac/iPad/iPhone uses IPS.

And yours continue to be incorrect. They were using IPS panels way before the aluminium 24" iMac.
post #9 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner View Post

Comparisons of startup time don't in any way reflect usage results. SSD's tout this a ton, but really, how often do you start these devices?

Its indicative of the overall performance of the HW since these devices are using essentially the same SW. Of course, the Touch and iPad dont have cellular HW and SW to deal with, but that is factorable.

If that was the ONLY test, then Id understand your point, but there are plenty of others testing GPU speed, app launches, and website rendering. If you are a 3GS user (which is a Cortex-A8) considering moving to an iPhone 4 (which is also a Cortex-A8) you get a feel for the increased performance the new iPhone can offer. Whether this is from more optimized code, the A4 tweeking, and/or from a higher clocked CPU due to the larger battery that can handle it I cant say, but it does show a marked improvement .


Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

And yours continue to be incorrect. They were using IPS panels way before the aluminium 24" iMac.

I dont recall that being the case. I thought the 16:9 ratio iMacs were the first Macs to use an iPS display, with the iPad and iPhone 4 following suit. Id love to see an IPS display on a MBP, but they do tend to use more power so unless that hurdle can tackled for a 13 to 17 display then well likely have to wait a bit longer.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #10 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post


The iPod Touch, on the other hand, has a smaller/thinner, lower-res camera, which doesnt take the iPhone 4s great stills.

Here's Steve's take from a year ago:

Mr. Jobs reiterated what Phil Schiller, the marketing vice president, had said earlier in the onstage presentation: that Apple is really pitching the iPod Touch as a game machine these days. And to do that, you have to make it as inexpensive as possible.

Originally, we werent exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine, he said. We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is its the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and thats the big draw. So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We dont need to add new stuff. We need to get the price down where everyone can afford it.

I guess it decided that, this time around, it would not get the price down to where everyone can afford it, but instead, would include a camera in last-year's vacant spot. Or something like that.

I love it how Steve keeps us guessing.
post #11 of 33
Darker picture contrast?

Did tester notice the most important difference? It looks like focal lengths are different! Check the same subject sizes.

You get different amount of light to iPhone4 and iPod Touch (due to different focal length of optical element) hence they show different level of brigness and contrast. Simple.
post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I dont recall that being the case. I thought the 16:9 ratio iMacs were the first Macs to use an iPS display, with the iPad and iPhone 4 following suit. Id love to see an IPS display on a MBP, but they do tend to use more power so unless that hurdle can tackled for a 13 to 17 display then well likely have to wait a bit longer.

Well, you recall incorrectly. I can assure you that the Apple Cinema Display 20" ADC that I bought in 2003 had an S-IPS panel.
post #13 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

Well, you recall incorrectly. I can assure you that the Apple Cinema Display 20" ADC that I bought in 2003 had an S-IPS panel.

I was talking about Macs, not their professional ACDs. I dont anything about them. As stated, I dont think any Mac desktop, notebook or iDevices have had them until this last group of releases.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I was talking about Macs, not their professional ACDs. I dont anything about them. As stated, I dont think any Mac desktop, notebook or iDevices have had them until this last group of releases.

Again you're wrong. The original 20" iMac G5 had an IPS panel and then the Intel plastic iMac 24" also had an IPS panel.
post #15 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple's latest iPod touch update has been given a direct comparison to the iPhone 4, with new videos that demonstrate the speed, display, and video-taking quality of each device....

Not to be too negative, but this seems like a total waste of time to me. For starters, the iPad should have been excluded since it's running a different version of the OS and the comparison is therefore useless (hello? start up times?).

Also, informal tests like this just show that this one particular iPod touch is the way it is. With the relatively vast amount of manufacturing flaws we have seen in all the iOS product lines this year, and the fact that batches of devices are made at this factory or that with various screen parts, and at various times, it's really quite meaningless to test a single device like this and come to any solid conclusions. Especially on such subtle details and differences.
post #16 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

Again you're wrong. The original 20" iMac G5 had an IPS panel and then the Intel plastic iMac 24" also had an IPS panel.

No, im not wrong, unless youre claiming that I did think that Apple used IPS displays on previous consumer devices and lying about it.

After some research I found a review to back up your claim that Apple used IPS in earlier ACDs. Next time, you might want to try to be more productive with your posts instead of getting defensive and destroying any chance for a civil conservation or debate.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1668/2
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #17 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Also, informal tests like this just show that this one particular iPod touch is the way it is. With the relatively vast amount of manufacturing flaws we have seen in all the iOS product lines this year, and the fact that batches of devices are made at this factory or that with various screen parts, and at various times, it's really quite meaningless to test a single device like this and come to any solid conclusions. Especially on such subtle details and differences.


You seem to have a much lower opinion of Apple's QA than average. I would think that the factors you cite would make no meaningless difference in performance, and that the specs would be tight enough so that individual performance variations would be minimal.
post #18 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

No, i’m not wrong, unless you’re claiming that I did think that Apple used IPS displays on previous consumer devices and lying about it.

After some research I found a review to back up your claim that Apple used IPS in earlier ACDs. Next time, you might want to try to be more productive with your posts instead of getting defensive and destroying any chance for a civil conservation or debate.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1668/2

Yes, you were wrong to think that any Mac desktop, notebook or iDevices didn't have them until this last group of releases because they did.

The ACD in that anadtech review isn't the ADC model, it's the next version.

As for "getting defensive and destroying any chance for a civil conservation or debate", well, serious case of pot calling the kettle black.
post #19 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Here's Steve's take from a year ago:

Mr. Jobs reiterated what Phil Schiller, the marketing vice president, had said earlier in the onstage presentation: that Apple is really pitching the iPod Touch as a game machine these days. And to do that, you have to make it as inexpensive as possible.

Originally, we werent exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine, he said. We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is its the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and thats the big draw. So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We dont need to add new stuff. We need to get the price down where everyone can afford it.

I guess it decided that, this time around, it would not get the price down to where everyone can afford it, but instead, would include a camera in last-year's vacant spot. Or something like that.

I love it how Steve keeps us guessing.

Yes, feeble minds quiver at every turn.
post #20 of 33
This really makes the iphone 4 look bad.
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
post #21 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopuschen View Post

couple statements in this article are not correct

- apple adopted ips panel starting with the first aluminum 24inch imac. Apple didn't market ips until they unveiled the current generation of imac. In their current lineup, imac/ipad/iphone uses ips.

- the video difference between iphone and ipod touch is not much. You don't say "dark contrast". While video is a little darker in ipod touch, i actually think it has a higher contrast. Video from iphone looks washed out.

I would like to have ips on touch but i guess it's a cost cutting thing. I hope the color accuracy would be good (as demonstrated in current macbook pros, apple can do great color even without ips).

pva..
post #22 of 33
"4G" guys? Really?
post #23 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by zigzaglens View Post

"4G" guys? Really?

The "G" stands for generation. In this instance it stands for the 4th generation iPod Touch.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #24 of 33
Anyone know how they accomplished that edit of the two side by side vertical videos into that beautiful horizontal video? It's amazing to me that such a small .7 megapixel camera on the iPod Touch 4gen can favorably compare to the 5 megapixel iPhone 4's camera. I too like the wider albiet slightly but not too much darker shot the iPod Touch 4gen is capable of taking. Anyone know the file size of one hour of an iPod Touch video? Wonder if it's a lot smaller than the iPhone's or the same?

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post

Anyone know how they accomplished that edit of the two side by side vertical videos into that beautiful horizontal video? It's amazing to me that such a small .7 megapixel camera on the iPod Touch 4gen can favorably compare to the 5 megapixel iPhone 4's camera. I too like the wider albiet slightly but not too much darker shot the iPod Touch 4gen is capable of taking. Anyone know the file size of one hour of an iPod Touch video? Wonder if it's a lot smaller than the iPhone's or the same?

The 720p video camera assuming its 960x720 (1.33:1) resolution is only 0.7 megapixels just like the still camera. The iPhone 4 has much better camera optics but its 720p video camera is only recording in 1280x720 (1.78:1) resolution, or 0.9 megapixels.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #26 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post

Anyone know how they accomplished that edit of the two side by side vertical videos into that beautiful horizontal video? It's amazing to me that such a small .7 megapixel camera on the iPod Touch 4gen can favorably compare to the 5 megapixel iPhone 4's camera. I too like the wider albiet slightly but not too much darker shot the iPod Touch 4gen is capable of taking. Anyone know the file size of one hour of an iPod Touch video? Wonder if it's a lot smaller than the iPhone's or the same?

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The 720p video camera — assuming it’s 960x720 (1.33:1) resolution — is only 0.7 megapixels just like the still camera. The iPhone 4 has much better camera optics but its 720p video camera is only recording in 1280x720 (1.78:1) resolution, or 0.9 megapixels.

So you think the new iPod Touch doesn't shoot standard 1280x720p HD? I find that a shocking presumption that claims Apple is not following the 720p HD standard. I believe you must be mistaken. Can I get a confirmation I am correct or wrong from someone else here please? I am saying I believe video from both devices is 1280x720p. Can I get an Amen? Or not?

Still would like to know how they got those 2 verticle videos into one horizontal video next to each other. Anyone know how that was done?

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post

So you think the new iPod Touch doesn't shoot standard 1280x720p HD? I find that a shocking presumption that claims Apple is not following the 720p HD standard. I believe you must be mistaken. Can I get a confirmation I am correct or wrong from someone else here please? I am saying I believe video from both devices is 1280x720p. Can I get an Amen? Or not?

Still would like to know how they got those 2 verticle videos into one horizontal video next to each other. Anyone know how that was done?

I’m not claiming anything. I’m using the info provided to us about the still photo resolution, typically the highest resolution of the still and video camera combination, and the known number horizontal lines. What else can I say, I thought I made that clear with the word ‘assume’ in my post by going with the only known data sets.

And what about 720p or HD means, as set in stone, that the other axis has to be 1280 or that the aspect ratio has to be 1.78:1? While it’s expected in HDTVs I don’t think it’s a requirement.

Here is what Apple says on their Spec Sheet…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple

Video recording, HD (720p) up to 30 frames per second with audio; still photos (960 x 720) with back camera

So if the still photos are 960x720 and the HD video is 1280x720, why does the camera lose 320lines or 0.2 megapixel when taking a still photo but gains them back when essentially taking 30 photos per second?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #28 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Im not claiming anything. Im using the info provided to us about the still photo resolution, typically the highest resolution of the still and video camera combination, and the known number horizontal lines. What else can I say, I thought I made that clear with the word assume in my post by going with the only known data sets.

And what about 720p or HD means, as set in stone, that the other axis has to be 1280 or that the aspect ratio has to be 1.78:1? While its expected in HDTVs I dont think its a requirement.

Here is what Apple says on their Spec Sheet

So if the still photos are 960x720 and the HD video is 1280x720, why does the camera lose 320lines or 0.2 megapixel when taking a still photo but gains them back when essentially taking 30 photos per second?

Video recording uses a different way that gets more resolution than the still resolution. Perhaps an interpolation trick? In any event, the new iPod Touch sure shoots good looking 720p HD video with perhaps one of the smallest pixel count cameras for that class of video ever used. Pretty amazing.

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post

Video recording uses a different way that gets more resolution than the still resolution. Perhaps an interpolation trick? In any event, the new iPod Touch sure shoots good looking 720p HD video with perhaps one of the smallest pixel count cameras for that class of video ever used. Pretty amazing.

Gotcha. The way this tech works is well beyond my ken, but I can do the math, which is why I qualified my statement the way I did.

Heck, I still dont even know a round lens can produce a rectangular image with no distortion. Seriously, i have absolutely no idea.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopuschen View Post

Couple statements in this article are not correct

- Apple adopted IPS panel starting with the first aluminum 24inch iMac. Apple didn't market IPS until they unveiled the current generation of iMac. In their current lineup, iMac/iPad/iPhone uses IPS.

- The video difference between iPhone and iPod Touch is not much. you don't say "dark contrast". While video is a little darker in iPod Touch, I actually think it has a HIGHER contrast. Video from iPhone looks washed out.

I would like to have IPS on touch but I guess it's a cost cutting thing. I hope the color accuracy would be good (as demonstrated in current Macbook Pros, Apple can do great color even without IPS).

I'm pretty sure Apple used IPS in their aluminum Cinema Displays. Correct me if I'm wrong here...
post #31 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

No, im not wrong, unless youre claiming that I did think that Apple used IPS displays on previous consumer devices and lying about it.

After some research I found a review to back up your claim that Apple used IPS in earlier ACDs. Next time, you might want to try to be more productive with your posts instead of getting defensive and destroying any chance for a civil conservation or debate.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1668/2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

Yes, you were wrong to think that any Mac desktop, notebook or iDevices didn't have them until this last group of releases because they did.

The ACD in that anadtech review isn't the ADC model, it's the next version.

As for "getting defensive and destroying any chance for a civil conservation or debate", well, serious case of pot calling the kettle black.

After reading these 2 posts (and a couple more back up there), I felt COMPELLED to support Londor on this one.

Solipsism, you are obviously WAY more experienced on these boards than I, and perhaps with Apple, but let me say that your "arguments" in this thread are ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS! Even if you say you THINK something, that doesn't make you not wrong! Further, you go on to what I feel is a clearly attacking tone at Londor for not making a more productive post!? Londor did not say anything that felt personally attacking prior to this, and I'm totally with him on his Kettle comment - your statement is hypocritical. And as far as I know, there is no rule that I know of that your posts have to have a certain amount of credibility or productiveness to them. Then again, there is also no rule against making absolutely ridiculous statements

I'm not trying to start a war here, just pointing this out. Props to Londor for handling this beautifully and with class!
post #32 of 33
i concerned about new touch always...
but...
How is an ipod touch different from an iphone, other than it being a phone also?



o
post #33 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by marylucyking View Post

i concerned about new touch always...
but...
How is an ipod touch different from an iphone, other than it being a phone also?



o

This has been answered a million times.

Advantages of the iPhone 4 over the iPod Touch 4 (besides phone functions):
  • IPS screen vs. TFT screen - This will make the iPhone 4's screen much more vibrant and color accurate from any angle except straight on.
  • GPS - The iPod Touch will still work with location-aware applications, but the accuracy, location update speed and location availability are severely limited in comparison.
  • Compass - Applications that require the iPhone's compass will not work with the iPod Touch, and applications that have an added benefit from the compass will not have that benefit with the iPod Touch. Example: Star Walk
  • Rear- facng Still Camera - The iPhone 4 has a good 5MP rear-facing camera with LED flash and the iPod Touch has an 0.7MP rear-facing camera with no flash.
  • Camera Flash - Aside from being for use when taking photos or video, the iPhone's camera flash is used for certain apps like flashlight apps. Although arguably useless, these apps obviously will not work with the iPod Touch.
  • HDR - The HDR photography function only works with the iPhone's higher res camera and is not available on the iPod Touch.
  • Louder speaker - Although the built-in speaker of the new iPod Touch is reported to be louder than the previous model, the iPhone's speaker is still quite a bit louder.
  • Glass back - The glass back of the iPhone 4 is much more scratch resistant than the stainless steel back of the iPod Touch.
  • Mute button - The iPod Touch 4 has no mute/screen orientation lock button.
  • Proximity sensor - The iPod Touch has no proximity sensor. This shouldn't be needed for other applications besides making phone calls, but theoretically, it could be used in other ways, though Apple has not authorized such use.
  • Oleophobic coating - The iPod Touch has no oil-resistant coating on the glass. Keep a microfiber wipe handy.
  • Case and accessory options - A far wider variety of cases and accessories is offered for the iPhone 4, even more so than the small difference in units sold would have one expect.
  • Find my iPhone - The Find My iPhone service of Mobile Me is only available for the iPhone. If you lose your iPhone, you still have this slight added chance of recovery. If you lose your iPod Touch, you're pretty much SOL.
  • The unknown factor - Strangely, there are some very few apps that work for the iPhone and don't work for the iPod Touch, with no explanation whatsoever as to why. Of course no major apps would have this problem, as developers want apps to work on as many devices as possible.

Advantages of the iPod Touch 4 over the iPhone 4:
  • Smaller - The iPod Touch 4 is much thinner than even the already thin iPhone 4. It is also much lighter. The screen size is the same.
  • No contract - The iPod Touch will not cost you any additional monthly cell or data fees, locked to a single carrier (in the US). If you want cellular data, you have a much wider choice of providers who offer Mi-Fi like devices and connectivity for a lower price than iPhone data plans.
  • No interruptions - Games, browsing and productivity apps will not be interrupted by a phone call if you're using an iPod Touch.
  • Much cheaper - The TCO of the iPod Touch, even when comparing subsidised cost and the difference between cellular plans, can be hundreds less than an iPhone.
  • Higher capacity - The iPod Touch comes in a 64GB capacity model for half the price of the 32GB iPhone 4. There is no 64GB iPhone 4 offered.

Ambiguous differences between the iPhone 4 and the iPod Touch 4:
  • Battery life - The iPhone has a much larger battery, which should mean more battery life. However, the cellular hardware negates this advantage. If you're using your iPhone as a phone, you will have lower time between recharges than the iPod Touch, depending on your usage habits.
  • RAM - The iPhone has 512MB of RAM and the iPod Touch only has 256MB. Most apps wont show any difference, and the iPod Touch has lower general RAM requirements due to lack of the constantly running mobile phone elements of the OS. Startup time may also be longer on the iPhone 4 due to the increased amount of RAM. However, theoretically, apps could require the higher amount of RAM to run (though I'm not aware of any) and performance could differ when running lots of multitasking capable apps concurrently.
  • Rear Camera Video Performance - Both devices produce the same 720p video files. However, the hardware is different. Some people actually prefer video taken with the iPod Touch, though theoretically, the video from the iPhone should be better.
  • Microphone - The microphone hardware is different between the iPhone and the iPod Touch. However, in real-world use, such as for FaceTime chatting, most people didn't notice much difference in performance.

No difference between the iPhone 4 and the iPod Touch 4:
  • CPU - All observation shows that other than with regard to RAM, the CPU is the same A4 processor, at the same speed.
  • Front-facing camera - The front-facing video and still camera on both devices is the same.
  • Facetime - Facetime video chats work equally well between both devices.
  • Screen size and resolution - The screen is the same size and has the same incredible 960x640 pixel resolution.
  • Other screen details - Other than the IPS/LCD difference, the screen of the iPod Touch has the same LED backlighting and glass welding process that combine to make the iPhone 4 so amazing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iPod touch 4G speed, camera, display measured against iPhone 4