or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Teardown of Apple's new iPod touch finds 512MB of RAM, weaker home button than iPhone 5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Teardown of Apple's new iPod touch finds 512MB of RAM, weaker home button than iPhone 5

post #1 of 65
Thread Starter 
With Apple's new iPod touch now available, the portable media player has been dissected to discover 512 megabytes of Hynix RAM inside its A5 processor, as well as a home button design different from the iPhone 5.

iPod touch


The fifth-generation iPod touch features a home button with a rubber membrane, iFixit found in its teardown. That's weaker than the redesigned home button they found when they took apart Apple's new iPhone 5.

The disassembly also found that the volume buttons, microphone, LED flash and power button are all connected via the same ribbon cable that easily peels from the rear case.

iPod touch


"We've seen this type of design in previous Apple products," the solution provider noted. "The shift to a single ribbon cable is more cost-effective for the manufacturer, but unfortunately it has a negative impact on repairability."

The battery inside the iPod touch was described as a "Plane Jane" component with a rating of 1030 mAh, an increase from the previous model's 930mAh. The battery is advertised to provide up to 40 hours of music playback on a single charge.

iPod touch


iFixit also found that the 4-inch Retina display on the fifth-generation iPod touch is inferior to the screen on the iPhone 5. It characterized the iPod touch screen as "a much simpler, cheaper design."

The teardown also offers a closer look at the 5-megapixel camera Apple has put into the fifth-generation iPod touch. The lens is capable of recording high-definition 1080p video at 30 frames per second.

The full list of parts found in the fifth-generation iPod touch are included below:
  • A5 Processor
  • Hynix H9TKNNN4KDBRCR 512 MB RAM
  • Toshiba THGBX2G8D4JLA01 32 GB NAND flash
  • Apple 3381064 dialog power management IC
  • Murata 339S0171 Wi-Fi module
  • Broadcom BCM 5976 touchscreen controller
  • Apple 33831116
  • STMicroelectronics AGD32229ESGEK low-power, three-axis gyroscope
  • Texas Instruments 27AZ5R1 touchscreen SoC
post #2 of 65
1) Is the Hynix RAM new for Apple devices?

2) I'm not surprised by the Home Button difference. I am certain the average phone will get used a lot more than the average PMP. I think I did more than a million presses on that Home Button on my iPhone 4. Even though it was getting a little annoying I can't fault it for functioning after so much abuse.

3) This is mostly the setup I would expect an iPad mini to have. Note the rumoured 1024x768 = 786432px and 1136x640 = 727,040px which means no real change to the GPU is required. A bigger battery to power the larger backlight and touch matrix are the only real change to make the iPod Touch an iPad mini. I would expect the same basic case design as the new Touch, as well as colors for a $299-$349 price point.
Edited by SolipsismX - 10/11/12 at 6:12am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #3 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) Is the Hynix RAM new for Apple devices?
2) I'm not surprised by the Home Button difference. I am certain the average phone will get used a lot more than the average PMP. I think I did more than a million presses on that Home Button on my iPhone 4. Even though it was getting a little annoying I can't fault it for functioning after so much abuse.
3) This is mostly the setup I would expect an iPad mini to have.

I seriously hope that you are wrong.

post #4 of 65
It appears a lot of people are comparing it to the iPhone 5 rather than the previous generation iPod Touch.
post #5 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) Is the Hynix RAM new for Apple devices?
2) I'm not surprised by the Home Button difference. I am certain the average phone will get used a lot more than the average PMP. I think I did more than a million presses on that Home Button on my iPhone 4. Even though it was getting a little annoying I can't fault it for functioning after so much abuse.
3) This is mostly the setup I would expect an iPad mini to have. Note the rumoured 1024x768 = 786432px and 1136x640 = 727,040px which means no real change to the GPU is required. A bigger battery to power the larger backlight and touch matrix are the only real change to make the iPod Touch an iPad mini. I would expect the same basic case design as the new Touch, as well as colors for a $299-$349 price point.
If that's what Apple has planned for a smaller iPad why bother?
post #6 of 65
Given the income Apple gets on an iPod is roughly half what it gets for an iPhone, it stands up pretty well. The iPod gets more of its 512mb of RAM dedicated to the apps, as there is no phone overhead. Same goes with the battery, with no 3G/LTE overhead, it doesn't need to be as strong.

You get a lot for your cash, that's for sure.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #7 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

If that's what Apple has planned for a smaller iPad why bother?

Because it'll perform faster than other inexpensive tablets in its class and it's a way to keep the cost down so an 7.85" 4:3 tablet can compete with a 7" 16:9 tablet. Note that an iPad mini of that size has nearly 50% more display area and yet will have to be profitable for Apple to do it.

You simply can't say you want the performance and PPI of the iPad (3) in a mini tablet and expect it to have the cost, weight, thickness, and longevity that would be required to be a feasible product. I think cost and weight are the two primary goals here. This means that it simply wasn't feasible before 32nm. A6 could increase that even further to help reduce battery usage for a give performance level (id est, clock it lower compared to the A5/32nm) but I'm betting on it being A5/32nm.

Basically, I'm envisioning an iPod Touch that "adults" would want for reading, that schools would want for various reasons, that companies would want for handheld devices. The iPod Touch is too PMPy to satisfy the needs of those that 1) don't want a 10" device, 2) don't want a 4" device, and/or 3) find the iPad too costly for their needs. Surely you've read how people want a smaller tablet from Apple that already have an iPhone but how many people have an iPhone and yet still want an iPod Touch for reading? I'm guessing not many.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #8 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Because it'll perform faster than other inexpensive tablets in its class and it's a way to keep the cost down so an 7.85" 4:3 tablet can compete with a 7" 16:9 tablet. Note that an iPad mini of that size has nearly 50% more display area and yet will have to be profitable for Apple to do it.
(1)You simply can't say you want the performance and PPI of the iPad (3) in a mini tablet and (2) expect it to have the cost, (3)weight, thickness, and longevity that would be required to be a feasible product. (4) I think cost and weight are the two primary goals here. This means that it simply wasn't feasible before 32nm. A6 could increase that even further to help reduce battery usage for a give performance level (id est, clock it lower compared to the A5/32nm) but I'm betting on it being A5/32nm.
Basically, I'm envisioning an iPod Touch that "adults" would want for reading, that schools would want for various reasons, that companies would want for handheld devices. The iPod Touch is too PMPy to satisfy the needs of those that 1) don't want a 10" device, 2) don't want a 4" device, and/or 3) find the iPad too costly for their needs. Surely you've read how people want a smaller tablet from Apple that already have an iPhone but how many people have an iPhone and yet still want an iPod Touch for reading? I'm guessing not many.

Thank god you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Those of us that are expecting (1) are not expecting (2) and (4). Eliminate number (4), eliminate the reference to (2). There it is.. the perfect 7inch.. and the perfect tablet for millions and millions. Otherwise what do you get?? "meh".

 

399 and up.

 

We expect it to loose performance wise only to the 9.7ipad, it should be lighter, smaller and have 7h/8h of battery life. throw 4g at it too.

 

If you want an e-reader go on and buy one.. if you want a lesser nexus go on and buy one, if you want one of those with an apple at the back forget it. they won't make an inferior product.

post #9 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Thank god you don't know what you are talking about.

Those of us that are expecting (1) are not expecting (2) and (4). Eliminate number (4), eliminate the reference to (2). There it is.. the perfect 7inch.. and the perfect tablet for millions and millions. Otherwise what do you get?? "meh".

399 and up.

A one-handed tablet that requires two hands. Makes perfect sense¡

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #10 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


If that's what Apple has planned for a smaller iPad why bother?

 

Speaking of the iPad mini. Were's those "claimed" invitations to the event "supposed" to go out yesterday.

post #11 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

Given the income Apple gets on an iPod is roughly half what it gets for an iPhone, it stands up pretty well. The iPod gets more of its 512mb of RAM dedicated to the apps, as there is no phone overhead. Same goes with the battery, with no 3G/LTE overhead, it doesn't need to be as strong.
You get a lot for your cash, that's for sure.

 

512mb of RAM is bad news for consumers and developers who want to take full advantage of current generation devices.

post #12 of 65
If an iPod touch, iPhone, iPad and MacBook Air can have retina display how come a smaller iPad can't? If Apple is going to do this they need to beat nexus 7 and Fire HD on build qualiry, specs and features. Shame on Apple if they release an inferior product, charge $50-$100 more for it all on the thought people will buy it because it's Apple and because of the iOS ecosystem. If the iPod touch can have retina display the smaller iPad can too.
post #13 of 65
Will these new minis be Easter egg colored like the new iPod Touches?
I ask because the Tweenies are the obvious market for this as no adult would want or need a smaller iPad- Steve said so himself.
post #14 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Thank god you don't know what you are talking about.

Those of us that are expecting (1) are not expecting (2) and (4). Eliminate number (4), eliminate the reference to (2). There it is.. the perfect 7inch.. and the perfect tablet for millions and millions. Otherwise what do you get?? "meh".

399 and up.

We expect it to loose performance wise only to the 9.7ipad, it should be lighter, smaller and have 7h/8h of battery life. throw 4g at it too.

If you want an e-reader go on and buy one.. if you want a lesser nexus go on and buy one, if you want one of those with an apple at the back forget it. they won't make an inferior product.

I don't believe that Apple would offer two very different iPads at the same price, much like Apple doesn't offer different models of iPods at the same price, save for different choice of carriers or color options for iPads and iPods, respectively.

The resolution question would still need to be addressed, the UI needs to be altered to fit another resolution, scaling all the graphics smaller doesn't cut it. I just don't see Apple offering the 10" iPad UI on an 7"-8" model without some changes because it cuts your usable display area about in half.
Edited by JeffDM - 10/11/12 at 8:02am
post #15 of 65

Oddly enough, the color on the touch doesn't seems superficial as on the iPhone. Am I wrong?

post #16 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

It appears a lot of people are comparing it to the iPhone 5 rather than the previous generation iPod Touch.

 

Well, the intention of most reviewers is to make Apple look bad, so they kind of have to do that or it will look like it's a good product.  :-/

post #17 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Thank god you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Those of us that are expecting (1) are not expecting (2) and (4). Eliminate number (4), eliminate the reference to (2). There it is.. the perfect 7inch.. and the perfect tablet for millions and millions. Otherwise what do you get?? "meh".

 

399 and up.

 

We expect it to loose performance wise only to the 9.7ipad, it should be lighter, smaller and have 7h/8h of battery life. throw 4g at it too.

 

If you want an e-reader go on and buy one.. if you want a lesser nexus go on and buy one, if you want one of those with an apple at the back forget it. they won't make an inferior product.

 

This post is waaay confusing and makes no sense to me.  

 

The original poster bases his entire argument on his belief that weight and cost are the two primary factors being designed to, (a reasonable assumption IMO).  You then put up a long, convoluted argument with numbers that essentially says "who cares about about weight and cost" (2 and 4).  

 

Then you follow up by asserting that, among other things, "it should be lighter." ???

post #18 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post
...
The resolution question would still need to be addressed, the UI needs to be altered to fit another resolution, making icons smaller doesn't cut it. I just don't see Apple offering the 10" iPad UI on an 7"-8" model without some changes because it cuts your usable display area about in half.

 

I was thinking the same thing just this morning when I was reading a book on the iPad.

 

Apple's fancy skeuomorphic book in iBooks, with the page edges etc. would steal a huge amount of screen real estate from a 7.85" iPad mini.  Without a redesign, iPad mini wouldn't actually be that great as a book reader.  A full-screen, non-skeuomorphic design would be better in this case for sure. 

 

I have the feeling that the first rush of reports on the mini will be favourable, but the following week will be full of articles pointing out problems with the UI and how iOS 6 is awful etc.  

 

Help us Scott Forestall, you are our only hope! [looks to the side quickly, then crouches to end the message]

post #19 of 65
The best statement so far in this thread! IOS loves its RAM. You have to suspect this is done on purpose both to keep price low and to make iPhone more desirable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksodos View Post

512mb of RAM is bad news for consumers and developers who want to take full advantage of current generation devices.
post #20 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Apple's fancy skeuomorphic book in iBooks, with the page edges etc. would steal a huge amount of screen real estate from a 7.85" iPad mini.  Without a redesign, iPad mini wouldn't actually be that great as a book reader.  A full-screen, non-skeuomorphic design would be better in this case for sure. 

 

Ummm... you know you can already toggle full-screen mode in iBooks, right? (Font Icon > Theme > Full Screen Mode)

post #21 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

This post is waaay confusing and makes no sense to me.  

 

The original poster bases his entire argument on his belief that weight and cost are the two primary factors being designed to, (a reasonable assumption IMO).  You then put up a long, convoluted argument with numbers that essentially says "who cares about about weight and cost" (2 and 4).  

 

Then you follow up by asserting that, among other things, "it should be lighter." ???

Sorry for that.

 

Cost is secondary (as long as it makes sense, obviously) but the 7 inch will be lighter than the 9.7, there's no question about that.

 

Basically what solipsismX wants is a cheap android tablet with an apple logo on it, but more expensive because it's apple (and that as valor) and because of iOS. However, since the thing would be so "shitty", using iOS would be pretty much irrelevant (ecosystem wise). The thing about iOS is that it is such a great platform for develop beautiful, functional, ground breaking apps that android can't handle.. but that's only achievable if the right hardware and the right integration is there (cad viewer/editor, iPhoto, great games with great visuals (retina is a must for new iDevices), decent photoshop, more Autodesk apps, more audio/video editing apps..etc). The iPad that soliX wants would not be used for this, it would be just another cheap useless android tablet, but with "the" logo. This situation would also hurt the iPad brand and power.

 

So, a6, 1gb ram, 3core graphics, new retina resolution, 7 to 8h battery life (it's smaller..), awesome build quality. 399, 529 4g, 7".

and, a6, 2gb ram, beast graphics, retina, 10h battery life, awesome build quality, thinner and lighter than current iPad, 499, 629 4g, 9.7" and if the stars are alined both of them will come with 32gb minimum (at least the 9.7).

 

the ipad 2? 329.. 299.. 199.. only education, discontinued.. who cares. it belongs to the past.

 

Remember, for millions of users 7" is better form factor than 10".

It's pretty much certain that they won't keep selling the 9.7 with the current connector, at least that should change.

post #22 of 65

So I got chastised for calling this overpriced when it was announced (mainly because it had "retina display" that we now find out is cheaper quality).  Can we call it overpriced now?

 

This should have been $229 (and maybe even just 16gb to justify price)

The Mini should have been $299

 

And Apple would have sold tons more of both (and although smaller margins on both- the quantity would have more than made up for it).

 

I guess we'll have to wait until fall of 2013 for the $299 iPad mini, when they can drop the price of the iPod Touch to where it should have been originally ($199 or $229).

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #23 of 65
Touches are used by a surprising number of adults. Especially in business as it works well for E-Mail and calendar. So it will be with the Mini, I expect really strong sales to business users.

As to what Steve said, people really need to get over the fact that he was a salesman first and foremost. A good salesman sells what he has at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

Will these new minis be Easter egg colored like the new iPod Touches?
I ask because the Tweenies are the obvious market for this as no adult would want or need a smaller iPad- Steve said so himself.
post #24 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post


Basically what solipsismX wants is a cheap android tablet with an apple logo on it, but more expensive because it's apple (and that as valor) and because of iOS.

You're twisting his intent. Don't make him look like the enemy because you disagree with him.
post #25 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

So I got chastised for calling this overpriced when it was announced (mainly because it had "retina display" that we now find out is cheaper quality).  Can we call it overpriced now?

This should have been $229 (and maybe even just 16gb to justify price)
The Mini should have been $299

And Apple would have sold tons more of both (and although smaller margins on both- the quantity would have more than made up for it).

I guess we'll have to wait until fall of 2013 for the $299 iPad mini, when they can drop the price of the iPod Touch to where it should have been originally ($199 or $229).

Old Touches had TN displays, the new ones are IPS. That's a considerable improvement right there. I think it's 80-85% of the latest iPhone for 50% of the real price, the phone service subsidy significantly distorts the apparent price of phones.
Edited by JeffDM - 10/11/12 at 8:24am
post #26 of 65
Non sense, using this logic the iPhone and Touch would be useless.

As for the UI developers can tailor their apps anyway they want to support the screen. Beyond that iOS has been significant improved to make some of the UI elements mailable, many apps will run just fine on the new Mini. For developers actively involved in iOS development it should be rather obvious to them where Apple is going as such their apps should be designed from the ground up to require a minimal of tweaking on a new screen.

Honestly this obsession with the screen size of the Mini and the supposed problems is garbage. It is a different device for a different need. People that dismiss the idea of the Min based on size mis the fact that many people are buying smaller devices because they are in fact smaller.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I was thinking the same thing just this morning when I was reading a book on the iPad.

Apple's fancy skeuomorphic book in iBooks, with the page edges etc. would steal a huge amount of screen real estate from a 7.85" iPad mini.  Without a redesign, iPad mini wouldn't actually be that great as a book reader.  A full-screen, non-skeuomorphic design would be better in this case for sure. 

I have the feeling that the first rush of reports on the mini will be favourable, but the following week will be full of articles pointing out problems with the UI and how iOS 6 is awful etc.  

Help us Scott Forestall, you are our only hope! [looks to the side quickly, then crouches to end the message]
post #27 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The best statement so far in this thread! IOS loves its RAM. You have to suspect this is done on purpose both to keep price low and to make iPhone more desirable.
Not sure I understand the more desirable comment. A customer walks into an Apple store to buy an iPod, upon learning that it has 512 mb of ram, they instead opt for a phone?
post #28 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

If that's what Apple has planned for a smaller iPad why bother?
Because the mini-tablet will likely replace the Touch. It's hard for me to imagine an ecosystem where parents are giving their old iPhones to their kids to use basically as a Touch, or kids getting new "free" subsidized iPhones, or used ones off eBay for less than the cost of a Touch, who would still want to buy a new Touch when it is so limited. Therefore, since most of the people who would buy a Touch are buying cheap smartphones instead, the Touch makes more sense as a small tablet ... Still portable, but better for games, movies, books and Internet, but still sold for the same price. And it will do something better than any tablet out there, or the Touch, because its Apple and they won't make a product merely to compete with Google.
post #29 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Non sense, using this logic the iPhone and Touch would be useless.
As for the UI developers can tailor their apps anyway they want to support the screen. Beyond that iOS has been significant improved to make some of the UI elements mailable, many apps will run just fine on the new Mini. For developers actively involved in iOS development it should be rather obvious to them where Apple is going as such their apps should be designed from the ground up to require a minimal of tweaking on a new screen.
Honestly this obsession with the screen size of the Mini and the supposed problems is garbage. It is a different device for a different need. People that dismiss the idea of the Min based on size mis the fact that many people are buying smaller devices because they are in fact smaller.

It's another set of logistical concerns that does need to be addressed. I think there is considerable value in keeping the number of supported resolutions down, for Apple and for third party developers. If it needs to behave like a third (or fourth) category of iOS devices, then that's a potential problem.
post #30 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

So I got chastised for calling this overpriced when it was announced (mainly because it had "retina display" that we now find out is cheaper quality).  Can we call it overpriced now?
No we can't. Why, because you would be hard pressed to find a device of equivalent quality at a similar or lower price. I mean really if you can find a similar device, with the same base features, at a dramtically lower price then you might have an argument.
Quote:
This should have been $229 (and maybe even just 16gb to justify price)
The Mini should have been $299
I'm not going to jump to Mini pricing conclusions until the device is actually delivered.
Quote:
And Apple would have sold tons more of both (and although smaller margins on both- the quantity would have more than made up for it).

I guess we'll have to wait until fall of 2013 for the $299 iPad mini, when they can drop the price of the iPod Touch to where it should have been originally ($199 or $229).

Is the Touch overly expensive? This is what you seem to be implying. I look at it this way, the Touch is probably more powerful than at least half of the PCs I've ever owned. Most of those PCs cost me far more dollars than one Touch. I can remember paying far more for hard drives with a fraction of the storage. It still comes down to this, where are competitive products, if any exist, priced at.

Mind you I'm not thrilled with Touch pricing but I just don't see a lot of hardware out there that is significantly cheaper.
post #31 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm not surprised by the Home Button difference. I am certain the average phone will get used a lot more than the average PMP. I think I did more than a million presses on that Home Button on my iPhone 4. Even though it was getting a little annoying I can't fault it for functioning after so much abuse.
Yeah, I don't agree with this. On what do you base your assumption that the average phone will get a lot more use? Because its a phone? Kids are texting, and playing games, probably far more than a phone user. While there are a number of adults who have touches, that is not the primary market. So at a minimum, I expect it all averages out.

Either way, that's no excuse to skimp on the home button. Are you kidding me!? On the scale Apple buys parts, there's no excuse for not putting the same high quality home button in every device.

I am actually insulted by this as I have an iPhone 4 with a sticky home button, which at times renders my phone mostly unusable. A simple Google search pulls up thousands of pages devoted to this particular problem with a dozen solutions for fixing it without incurring $150 to have it repaired. Apple had a no questions asked policy to swap out iPhones with faulty home buttons. Essentially a poor design for the amount of use was cited, compounded by changes in iOS to incorporate double-clicks and tripple-clicks -- something Apple remedied in the iPhone 4S. Bottom line, when something is an essential feature of the device, for which you can't otherwise reliably use it, you make sure it is reliable and works every time. You don't design a Porsche and put a cheap starter on it.
post #32 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

So I got chastised for calling this overpriced when it was announced (mainly because it had "retina display" that we now find out is cheaper quality).  Can we call it overpriced now?

This should have been $229 (and maybe even just 16gb to justify price)
The Mini should have been $299

And Apple would have sold tons more of both (and although smaller margins on both- the quantity would have more than made up for it).

I guess we'll have to wait until fall of 2013 for the $299 iPad mini, when they can drop the price of the iPod Touch to where it should have been originally ($199 or $229).
It's no more pricier than its predecessor. And while it's of a cheaper quality than the iPhone 5, it's more expensive than the iPod Touch it replaces - Not to mention lighter, faster, better quality, and more capable.
Edited by Postulant - 10/11/12 at 8:48am
post #33 of 65
If we where talking about the old days of iPhone OS that might be an issue. At this time though iOS is improved considerably and continues to improve to allow developers to more easily support alternative device sizes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It's another set of logistical concerns that does need to be addressed. I think there is considerable value in keeping the number of supported resolutions down, for Apple and for third party developers. If it needs to behave like a third (or fourth) category of iOS devices, then that's a potential problem.

The issue with third party developers is overstated. Software developer have had to address these issues for some time when dealing with Mac and PC hardware. Even text based interfaces have to deal with varying terminal sizes. In the end it is all about the right device to ship a product on. There are many iPad only apps for example because developers either don't want to support the small devices or the app isn't suitable for a small screen. Developers are pretty much free to support the devices they want as they see a need.
post #34 of 65
This is all well and good, nobody wants troublesome hardware. However there is nothing to indicate that the new home button will have the issues of the old. You simply can't imply reliability based on feel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

Yeah, I don't agree with this. On what do you base your assumption that the average phone will get a lot more use? Because its a phone? Kids are texting, and playing games, probably far more than a phone user. While there are a number of adults who have touches, that is not the primary market. So at a minimum, I expect it all averages out.
Either way, that's no excuse to skimp on the home button. Are you kidding me!? On the scale Apple buys parts, there's no excuse for not putting the same high quality home button in every device.
I am actually insulted by this as I have an iPhone 4 with a sticky home button, which at times renders my phone mostly unusable. A simple Google search pulls up thousands of pages devoted to this particular problem with a dozen solutions for fixing it without incurring $150 to have it repaired. Apple had a no questions asked policy to swap out iPhones with faulty home buttons. Essentially a poor design for the amount of use was cited, compounded by changes in iOS to incorporate double-clicks and tripple-clicks -- something Apple remedied in the iPhone 4S. Bottom line, when something is an essential feature of the device, for which you can't otherwise reliably use it, you make sure it is reliable and works every time. You don't design a Porsche and put a cheap starter on it.
post #35 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Well, the intention of most reviewers is to make Apple look bad, so they kind of have to do that or it will look like it's a good product.  :-/
I think it's irresponsible and a disservice. It gives the impression that Apple skimped on this model compared to previous generations.
post #36 of 65
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post
I think it's irresponsible and a disservice. It gives the impression that Apple skimped on this model compared to previous generations.

 

But only Apple can sue them for slander, which is a shame.

post #37 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
... "We've seen this type of design in previous Apple products," the solution provider noted. "The shift to a single ribbon cable is more cost-effective for the manufacturer, but unfortunately it has a negative impact on repairability."  ...

 

This right here shows how the folks at iFixit really just don't get it.  

 

The reason it's a single cable is that it makes it cheaper and easier to manufacture, but iFixit would suggest that this be replaced by a multitude of different smaller cables so the teeny teeny tiny percentage of freaks like them who want to "repair" their iPod touches can do it themselves.  

 

They are as far disconnected from reality as the average Linux user IMO.  

 

You don't create a device that's "bad" for the majority, so some tiny minority can enjoy an aspect of it that no one else does.  That's bad design, not good design.  

post #38 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post


I think it's irresponsible and a disservice. It gives the impression that Apple skimped on this model compared to previous generations.

 

I agree.  I think the basic problem is that Apple products are all good, and people like to hear bad things for the most part.  

 

If the reviewers were honest, every review would be glowing and that's (supposedly) "boring" so they always try to generate some friction and controversy.  AppleInsider used to steer away from this sort of thing and they still do with their internal reviews for the most part.  They have recently fallen into the same habit as most tech review sites however, and re-post stuff from outside sources that is all uniformly negative.  

 

A tech blog today (seemingly) *has* to have every story that comes out, so instead of ignoring the junk, they drive page views by endlessly repeating everything found on every other site even if it's just a link to the original.  With all the tech blogs doing the same thing, the original content drops precipitously, and everyone just repeats the same false gripes over and over again.  

 

It also leads to a situation where a completely incorrect story will flash around the planet and be on every blog before it's discovered that it's actually completely wrong.  Then the correction goes out, but that isn't as exciting so most people don't read or see it.  

 

In the end it comes down to the fervent anti-intellectualism rampant in today's global society.  Ignorance is king, and the trend seems to be accelerating instead of slowing down.  

 

On the bright side, everyone is so incredibly dumb now, that this is the moment to write that non-fiction book you've always wanted to because the competition amongst true intellects hasn't been this weak since ... well, ever.     :-)

post #39 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

This right here shows how the folks at iFixit really just don't get it.  

The reason it's a single cable is that it makes it cheaper and easier to manufacture, but iFixit would suggest that this be replaced by a multitude of different smaller cables so the teeny teeny tiny percentage of freaks like them who want to "repair" their iPod touches can do it themselves.  

They are as far disconnected from reality as the average Linux user IMO.  

You don't create a device that's "bad" for the majority, so some tiny minority can enjoy an aspect of it that no one else does.  That's bad design, not good design.  

I think they're trying too hard to negatively spin it, and that they're flat wrong on their point too. Fewer cables means there's less to go wrong when you do try to fix it. The octopus of cables with tiny connectors in the iPhone 4 illustrates this well, it would have been easier, not harder, to deal with if it were possible to connect fewer cables and fewer screws on a more unified subassembly with a wider connector, to the main board. The only down side in my opinion is the subassembly would be more expensive.
Edited by JeffDM - 10/11/12 at 10:19am
post #40 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post


It's no more pricier than its predecessor. And while it's of a cheaper quality than the iPhone 5, it's more expensive than the iPod Touch it replaces - Not to mention lighter, faster, better quality, and more capable.

Ah, logic.....

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Teardown of Apple's new iPod touch finds 512MB of RAM, weaker home button than iPhone 5