or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Video offers glimpse at Apple's revamped 16GB iPod touch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Video offers glimpse at Apple's revamped 16GB iPod touch

post #1 of 35
Thread Starter 
After a surprise launch of a new entry-level iPod touch, Apple's latest 16-gigabyte model is now out in the wild, and was captured on video by one of the first buyers.

iPod touch


Ben Pasternak of Sydney, Australia, got his hands on the new 16-gigabyte fifth-generation iPod touch, and captured the above footage showing off the new model. The back of the media player lacks the iSight camera and the wrist strap loop.

Apple surprised on Thursday when it unveiled the new basic iPod touch model for $229 in its online store. Pasternak's hands-on indicates that inventory of the updated media player is also beginning to appear in the company's retail locations.



While the new model lacks a rear-facing camera and wrist loop, it does add a 4-inch Retina display, dual-core A5 chip, and includes Apple EarPods. Those additions put it on par with Apple's higher end 32- and 64-gigabyte offerings.

The entry-level iPod touch does lack the color options of its more expensive siblings, however. The only option available is a black-on-silver design.

The new 16-gigabyte iPod touch also retains the forward facing FaceTime camera, and has the same connectivity options, including Apple's new, smaller Lightning connector. The lack of the camera and wrist strap holding button has also reduced the device's weight to 3.04 ounces.

Previously, the fifth-generation iPod touch debuted in September of 2012 without a 16-gigabyte option. Instead, Apple offered the fourth-generation iPod touch, with a slower processor and smaller screen, for $199.
post #2 of 35
Is this the same approach the 'budget iPhone' will take? Dumbed down?
post #3 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMonus View Post

Is this the same approach the 'budget iPhone' will take? Dumbed down?

 

Yup, that would make sense.  Reduce features rather than build quality to reduce cost.  If you want cheap/entry level, then you get what you pay for.

post #4 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by iMonus View Post

Is this the same approach the 'budget iPhone' will take? Dumbed down?

 

Yup, that would make sense.  Reduce features rather than build quality to reduce cost.  If you want cheap/entry level, then you get what you pay for.

If you guys believe that Apple would go and not use a camera on a new iPhone line... Oh boy.

post #5 of 35
Maybe this will put to rest the idea that a cheap iPhone has to be plastic. But losing the camera was a bad idea I think. Wonder what the reasoning was behind that?
post #6 of 35

Perhaps the reason for no camera is this iPod could be used as a remote for the new Apple TV or perhaps for iPhone users who don't need a second camera or for teenage gamers who can't afford more. Still plays all the apps, right? 

post #7 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Maybe this will put to rest the idea that a cheap iPhone has to be plastic. But losing the camera was a bad idea I think. Wonder what the reasoning was behind that?

In my humble opinion, the camera priorities aren't right.

 

On a tablet and iPod, the best camera should be front facing, for pictures, facetime and skype...

post #8 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

In my humble opinion, the camera priorities aren't right.

On a tablet and iPod, the best camera should be front facing, for pictures, facetime and skype...

idk about that. folks are quick to whip out their ipod and snap photos. my 12 yr old pics and vids all day. for the ipod, both are important. the ipad...you can get away with an acceptable rear but quality front camera.

folks w an ipad are pribably taking pics with their iphone. there are some cases though when i film with the ipad. id rather have the videos already on the ipad than taking extra steps to get it on there
post #9 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

If you guys believe that Apple would go and not use a camera on a new iPhone line... Oh boy.

Agree. An iPhone (cheaper version or not) without a camera would be DOA. Apple isn't stupid.
post #10 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

In my humble opinion, the camera priorities aren't right.

On a tablet and iPod, the best camera should be front facing, for pictures, facetime and skype...

I guess if you're egocentric enough, that makes sense. 1hmm.gif
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #11 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

...reduced the device's weight to 3.04 ounces...

Gahhh...it basically floats if you let go of it.
post #12 of 35
If there's no camera on this iPod, then what's the black area at the top on the back (where the camera might otherwise be)?
post #13 of 35

Perhaps they're keeping the camera components back to put into the 'much rumoured' cheap iPhone.
 

Presumably they need only add cellular hardware to this iPod Touch and you have a phone for circa $300.

post #14 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by asterion View Post

If there's no camera on this iPod, then what's the black area at the top on the back (where the camera might otherwise be)?
That's not where the camera would be. That's where the wifi antennas are. The same strip is on all the other iPod touch 5th gen models.
post #15 of 35

This model is the perfect one for Apple to be testing the waters of removing one camera.   There's not any incentive to get an iPodTouch over an iPhone if the price isn't much better.  There may be numbers that say the recent iPod touch sell decently but I've never seen one in NYC in the wild.  13 year olds have iPhones.

 

Makes perfect sense to differentiate them more.  Need a great camera both front and rear?  This isn't your model.

post #16 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

Makes perfect sense to differentiate them more.  Need a great camera both front and rear?  This isn't your model.

 

I tend to agree. From a consumer perspective, I think Apple ditched the wrong camera. I'd match rather have the iSight camera so I could use the Touch as a regular camera and would use that far more often than the FaceTime camera. But from a business perspective, Apple is all about the upsell...want the iSight camera, buy the more expensive model. Plus Apple still wants to push their FaceTime technology and the FaceTime camera is going to be cheaper than the iSight camera.
post #17 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMonus View Post

Is this the same approach the 'budget iPhone' will take? Dumbed down?

They shaved $70 by removing the camera and halving the storage.

 

Using the same formula, the 8gb, cameraless iPhone 5 would be $579. Not really budget territory...

 

The iPhone 4s would get knocked down to $475.

 

The iPhone 4 would go to $380.

 

I can't see Apple making an iPhone without a camera...

post #18 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

If you guys believe that Apple would go and not use a camera on a new iPhone line... Oh boy.

No. I think by "dumbing down" they were suggesting Apple would actually lower the intelligence of the thing.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #19 of 35

Who are they trying to target here?

 

Somebody has to be really hurting for money if they can't afford a measly $70 more, which gives them double the storage space and the back camera that comes with the regular model.

 

But if somebody doesn't have any use at all for the back camera, and if somebody does not need more than 16Gigs of storage space, and if somebody is looking to save a few bucks, then I guess that this new iPod Touch would be a good solution for them. I guess that it's good enough for parents to give to their kids.

post #20 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

This model is the perfect one for Apple to be testing the waters of removing one camera.   There's not any incentive to get an iPodTouch over an iPhone if the price isn't much better.  There may be numbers that say the recent iPod touch sell decently but I've never seen one in NYC in the wild.  13 year olds have iPhones.

 

Makes perfect sense to differentiate them more.  Need a great camera both front and rear?  This isn't your model.


I also don't see many in the wild, but I've seen a lot of iPod Touches in domestic situations. Some parents I've talked to say it's perfect for their teens, providing all the functionality of an iPhone except the cellular radio.

post #21 of 35

As an 'entry level' iPod touch, it's a good one for the car (iTunes jukebox), still allows facetime/skype calls (sans phone features), useful apps, games etc. If someone needs a photo camera too, just spring for the 32GB+ versions… an extra $70 for double the memory and a camera? It's not a huge difference if you need it.

 

I think this will sell well as a more affordable niche device.

 

Thinking about it more, some might wonder why Apple are introducing any 'new' iPods at all with the sales decreasing… they clearly know something we don't about their target market. 

post #22 of 35
Still double the built in storage of the planned Galaxy 4 mini! And no voice contract to suck money from your wallet every month.
post #23 of 35
Picture taking is more useful than video calls. I'd rather have a better camera on the back and lose the one on the front. The difference probably comes down to pennies.

That illustrates one reason why I can't get interested in iPod touches. Apple seems cripple them in irritating ways. For a long time it was no camera. Now it's not the camera I want. An iPhone a generation or two back makes more sense.
post #24 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

That illustrates one reason why I can't get interested in iPod touches. Apple seems cripple them in irritating ways. For a long time it was no camera. Now it's not the camera I want. An iPhone a generation or two back makes more sense.

 

If you need or must have an iPod Touch with the back camera, then you just get the $299 32 GB model.

 

A cheaper model of an iPod Touch is obviously going to come with some compromises.

post #25 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

Thinking about it more, some might wonder why Apple are introducing any 'new' iPods at all with the sales decreasing… they clearly know something we don't about their target market. 

 

Which sort of begs the question...has the iPod Touch ever *really* been an iPod? From day one it's had far more in common with the iPhone than with any iPod. And these days with the cameras, microphones, etc, it's has even less in common. I think the only reason it was called an iPod was because calling it a phone-less iPhone would have been stupid.

The declining iPod sales probably has less to do with the Touch than with the Classic, Nano, and Shuffle. The Classic and Shuffle are essentially the same models they had several years ago, and while the current Nano is OK, they've screwed it up enough times that it's lost its luster (the last click-wheel Nano is still the best design they've made).
post #26 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Which sort of begs the question...has the iPod Touch ever *really* been an iPod? From day one it's had far more in common with the iPhone than with any iPod. And these days with the cameras, microphones, etc, it's has even less in common. I think the only reason it was called an iPod was because calling it a phone-less iPhone would have been stupid.


The declining iPod sales probably has less to do with the Touch than with the Classic, Nano, and Shuffle. The Classic and Shuffle are essentially the same models they had several years ago, and while the current Nano is OK, they've screwed it up enough times that it's lost its luster (the last click-wheel Nano is still the best design they've made).

If Apple updates it, people complain it is "screwed up." If Apple leaves it alone, people complain it is "stale." Apple can't win.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #27 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Which sort of begs the question...has the iPod Touch ever *really* been an iPod? From day one it's had far more in common with the iPhone than with any iPod. And these days with the cameras, microphones, etc, it's has even less in common. I think the only reason it was called an iPod was because calling it a phone-less iPhone would have been stupid.


The declining iPod sales probably has less to do with the Touch than with the Classic, Nano, and Shuffle. The Classic and Shuffle are essentially the same models they had several years ago, and while the current Nano is OK, they've screwed it up enough times that it's lost its luster (the last click-wheel Nano is still the best design they've made).

If Apple updates it, people complain it is "screwed up." If Apple leaves it alone, people complain it is "stale." Apple can't win.

 

They could try a strategy where they don't take the two year old design and components and replace them with a new design with year old components and then move to a low cost version that removes some of the year old components thus leaving it as an outdated solution that has been intentionally crippled.

 

See if the iPod Touch had current components, as was the case when Apple was building share, then it would have the same processor as the iPhone 5. They the "gimped" version could have kept the camera and perhaps moved to the processor that is currently in the more expensive iPod Touch now, aka the same processor as in the iPhone 4s.

 

That is why Apple is screwing up. They already cut too much value and added too much cost. Their high profit sweet spot isn't working anymore. Everyone else is throwing too many phones and PMP's out there with better specs and cheaper prices. This is why it feels like Apple is damned if they do or don't. They aren't choosing the right solution that helped them win so many sales before.

 

Before anyone claims Apple didn't do this, every iPod Touch prior to the iPod Touch 5th gen used the exact same processor as the same iPhone. The iPod Touch 4th gen used the same processor as the iPhone 4 but looked behind because it sold unaltered for more than two years.

 

The rest of the industry has 6-12 month cycles. Apple seems to be adopting a once a year cycle if we are lucky.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #28 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


If Apple updates it, people complain it is "screwed up." If Apple leaves it alone, people complain it is "stale." Apple can't win.

 

Considering that twice in the Nano's product lifecycle (the fat nano and the "super-shuffle" nano) and once in the Shuffle's lifecycle (buttonless) Apple has made significant design changes only to go back to something similar, or nealy identical, to what they had the previous generation...yes, I'd call that a screw up. While I'm sure sales were already on a decline, I'd be willing to bet that there was a signficant drop off in sales coinsiding with the release of the buttonless Shuffle and the super-shuffle/clip-on Nano.
post #29 of 35
I actually prefer the look of this to the more expensive models with the white bezel.
post #30 of 35
revamped? this just looks like it's a step back. they just used the same shell and took off features and storage space. this is not forward moving technology.
post #31 of 35
I would rather pay the extra £50 for the camera and double memory of the full price iPod. Or better still get the iPad mini. I think the rear camera is necessary even though may android tablets don't have one.
post #32 of 35

This iPod touch is a bit of a mystery to me? We're only three months away from the traditional iPod refresh? There's no need in leaving the camera out. Apple could offer an iPod touch mini with a 3,5" screen instead.

 

Here's how I imagine their new line-up:

 

1. iPhone and iPhone mini = black face, silver back

2. iPod (touch) and iPod (touch) mini = white face, silver back with loop

post #33 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

If you guys believe that Apple would go and not use a camera on a new iPhone line... Oh boy.

I don't believe that at all, nor did I say it. Don't misquote me.
post #34 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosslad View Post

I would rather pay the extra £50 for the camera and double memory of the full price iPod. Or better still get the iPad mini. I think the rear camera is necessary even though may android tablets don't have one.

Well if you can afford the extra fifty then go for it, this is for people who can't.
post #35 of 35

I think it's this simple. Not everyone needs a camera in their multi-touch iPod (although they may want a 'facetime' camera for video calls). Now, they can buy an iPod Touch (a new iOS device) without paying for features they don't need (not everyone needs 32GB for their app/entertainment library either). 

 

If they do need a camera, or more storage, Apple hasn't discontinued those options. Just pay $70 more and you've got 'em both.

 

This may not *feel* like a good move by Apple, but adding options isn't a bad thing is it?

 

I imagine the same negative press will happen if/when Apple releases a cheaper iPhone. 

 

See, because what people REALLY want is the full-on iPhone/iPod Touch… they just want it for less money. Psh.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Video offers glimpse at Apple's revamped 16GB iPod touch