or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's iPod Touch losing out to iPod Nano at checkout lines
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iPod Touch losing out to iPod Nano at checkout lines - Page 2

post #41 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton View Post

Unsurprising. I feel exactly the same way. The Touch is nice, but there's no point to it when placed beside the iPhone. If you just want an iPod, the Nano is a great little player and the Classic has a lot of space. The Touch is the only one without a clear purpose.

I beg to differ. The iPod touch has a very clear purpose, and that is to provide the same functionality as the iPhone, minus the phone service charges. I have a 3G 20GB iPod and I would choose the iPod touch over the iPhone any day of the week; however, I will wait until the iPod touch gets more storage than my iPod. 32GB is enough to hold my entire music library, but it would quickly run out of space if I added my videos and photos so I will hold out until there is a 64GB model. The iPod touch should have 3G or WiMAX by the time it gets 64GB of storage, or at least, plenty of 3rd party applications created from the SDK that is going to be released in February.
post #42 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhill View Post

You know how Apple can make the iPod Touch attractive to me without relying on the price of flash memory?

Put a hard drive in it. Yeah, I said a hard drive. I know I'm not the only person out there who wants the Touch interface mated to the capacity of the Classic. I am still savoring the taste of disappointment with the last product line overhaul, because I was betting on having exactly that: touch + scads of storage. Until the company offers that, I'm out of the market for iPods.

I suspect Apple is trying to move away from hard drives in its players. For good reason if you ask me. Hard drives simply are not meant to be moved around. Between me and my girlfriend, I have had several hard drive based iPods fail because of the hard drive. The storage space is nice, but if you are actually an active person, you are gambling by buying a Classic iPod.
post #43 of 93
Munster reported a few days ago that of the iPods sold during Black Friday (unofficially), 38% were nanos, 19% classics, and 19% touches. If that's even close, it shows that there's a market for each type, and I hope Apple keeps offering all three.

For me, I have a new nano (for most travelling), and a classic. I'm not interested in the touch - I like the nano/classic interface just fine. Then again, I'm a dinosaur - I've never had a cell phone.
post #44 of 93
I would in a heartbeat, without thinking, spend as much as it would need, for a iPod touch with 80GB+ space and a red Nano with 16GB flash for my gf. 8GB Nano isn't enough, i have at the moment some 12GB music, and while the Nano has now even video capabilities, 16GB is minimum!

So Apple, is my money good enough?
Want to save America?

Vote Ron Paul for President in 2012
Reply
Want to save America?

Vote Ron Paul for President in 2012
Reply
post #45 of 93
Two issues with this story:

1. The iPod Touch was never meant to replace the Nano. In fact sales figures should compare the Touch and Classic sales instead.

2. The actual figures posted reflect that the iPod Touch had significant sales. It was only outsold by the Nano in Best Buy.

So really they are more like complementary products. The real deal is to figure out if the over all iPod sales and net revenues increased. That is the way to evaluate whether the Touch was a good decision.
post #46 of 93
I purchased the Ipod Touch for most of the reasons stated before. I have a service contract with T-mobile. Unfortunately it doesn't expire until Oct 08. So right now I'm lumped into the "Not Yet" group of future Iphone owners. lol...I imagine that's where a lot of potential buyers are at right now.
post #47 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Not to mention that having a large touchscreen interface and a spinning HDD would require an even larger battery to maintain the same usage time. Now we have a much thicker device that weighs more because of the increase in storage and battery sizes. Not ideal.

The touch is a lot thinner than the iPhone though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PandarenLord View Post

Have you ever tried to use the iPod touch? I have a 16 gb one, and I have to say, operating it with one hand is simple and extremely easy. In fact, the touch screen makes everything easier, not more difficult.

That's probably true though I really like being able to control my ipod through my pocket. I don't even have to see the screen to skip, pause or resume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKitty View Post

But that would cannabilize Classic sales.

I doubt it would do much. I think hard drive touches would cost more than Classics. I would still consider the 160GB model at $450. It's not that outlandish when the first 60GB photo was priced at over $600.
post #48 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by ailol View Post

This is non-news.

An un-story.

Nano has always outsold the more expensive iPods, since Nano was introduced. And Mini before that.

Ding Ding Ding! You win the cash, the car, and the trip to Tahiti!
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #49 of 93
Slow news day? More Macbooks purchased than iMacs?

The numbers are what? One weekend?

People must really need to justify the ad revenues at AppleInsider.com
post #50 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The touch is a lot thinner than the iPhone though.



That's probably true though I really like being able to control my ipod through my pocket. I don't even have to see the screen to skip, pause or resume.



I doubt it would do much. I think hard drive touches would cost more than Classics. I would still consider the 160GB model at $450. It's not that outlandish when the first 60GB photo was priced at over $600.

A 160 GB touch would be as thick as the first generation iPods!
post #51 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

A 160 GB touch would be as thick as the first generation iPods!

I don't know how thick they are, but I'd think it would have to be maybe adding half the thickness of the Touch to the thickness of the Classic.
post #52 of 93
The touch is completely worth the extra over a nano. The nano is a cute little machine (I have a silver 2G), but the touch blows it away. At the same time, the cost of an iPhone and the 18 month contract compared to a touch makes the touch look good again. I don't own a touch, but I want one, and I know what's possible with the touch system now (jailbreak) and by the time February comes, it will have that and more.

So now, an honest question - At the Macworld show in January... what are the chances of a 32Gb iPod touch being released?
post #53 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajprice View Post

So now, an honest question - At the Macworld show in January... what are the chances of a 32Gb iPod touch being released?

The only honest answer to your honest question is... nobody knows what the odds are.
post #54 of 93
I'm trying to come up with a single thing in that iPod report that is mind-numbingly obvious, and failing. This is one of the most content-free analyst reports I've ever seen.

As others have pointed out, the small pods have always been the best sellers. The Mini was the best seller, then the Nano, and it has remained that way. Total non-news.

I've actually been surprised at how well the Touch seems to be selling. On Amazon the 16 GB model always comes in ahead of any of the Classics, though obviously behind the best Nano colors. Considering its limitations, it's pretty impressive.

If Apple had a HDD-based unit, they would sell a zillion more. Count me in the group that considers exclusive use of flash to be a mistake. All arguments against HDD use are easily answered. Put in 1 GB of Flash for OS and other critical data, and save the HDD for media. Put in a bigger battery. Offer 30 GB and 80 GB models. Yes, it'd be a bit bigger and heavier, but somehow they're managing to sell a few iPhones despite this.

The numbers I'll be interested to see are Zune 2 sales vs. iPod. Has Microsoft gained any significant ground?
post #55 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't know how thick they are, but I'd think it would have to be maybe adding half the thickness of the Touch to the thickness of the Classic.

I think you are way off on your estimates. As soon as you add a HDD to the device you have to make the battery thicker as well, you're going to want at least 5 hours out of it for music right? And video, 2 hrs maybe?
post #56 of 93
The nano has the right price, otherwise the touch is far superior. I'm sure many people that want the tocuh end up getting the iphone anyway, dontcha think?
post #57 of 93
I bought the 16 GB touch when it came out. I sold my 30 GB 5th gen for $150 so the net price of the touch was only $250 to me - totally worth it. If I had to have forked over $400, I probably still would've done it, but it sure would have been more difficult.

As for the capacity argument, yeah, who wouldn't like more capacity. But, the limited capacity has made me manage my library more efficiently.
post #58 of 93
I think the touch is cool but at $299 and $399, I don't even bother looking at it when I go into the Apple store. For that price, I am thinking Playstation 3 (yeah, it's more expensive but the whole family gets to enjoy). The $149 iPod nano is definitely the right price for gift giving.
post #59 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by PandarenLord View Post

Have you ever tried to use the iPod touch? I have a 16 gb one, and I have to say, operating it with one hand is simple and extremely easy. In fact, the touch screen makes everything easier, not more difficult.

You must have really big hands if you can navigate the menus and select songs with one hand. I tried a few times and failed, almost dropping it in the attempt. You need one hand to hold the unit, and the other to flip/scroll through the interface.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PandarenLord View Post

Some features that are either not on the Nano, or are much better:
Calendar
Contacts
Wi-Fi web browsing
Widescreen (huge screen) videos
CoverFlow

For me, being able to manage events and contacts easily on my iPod (which is the only electronic device I carry with me) is great. Besides, have you noticed the huge screen?

I am aware of the differences. As I wrote, the only feature I really care about is web browsing. The rest are anemic compared to what I have in my Palm PDA.

Oh, and FWIW, the current nanos support CoverFlow. Personally, I think it just slows down the entire UI. It seriously gets in the way when you're trying to scroll through a list of 400 albums.

Huge screen? Yep. And that's a problem. My shirts don't have pockets big enough to hold it.
post #60 of 93
It is really too bad that Apple chose to use a sub-standard screen for the iPod Touch. It has been well documented that the screen on the iPhone is much clearer than the Touch.

If only the iPhone had more memory....which will happen soon.
post #61 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

It is really too bad that Apple chose to use a sub-standard screen for the iPod Touch. It has been well documented that the screen on the iPhone is much clearer than the Touch.

If only the iPhone had more memory....which will happen soon.

iPhone
Display
3.5-inch (diagonal) widescreen multi-touch display
480-by-320-pixel resolution at 163 pixels per inch

iPod Touch
Display
3.5-inch (diagonal) widescreen multi-touch display
480-by-320-pixel resolution at 163 ppi

How exactly is one sub-standard while being the same size and resolution?
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 #62 of 93
That is right just go to Apples web site sand look at its numbers. For iPods, Nano's come first closely followed by the Touch. Basically this guy, in action with the original poster, just yanked a lot of chains. Applying importance to this set of statements is clearly a big mistake.

Dave
post #63 of 93
The nano/mini have always been the best selling iPods since says after their launch

While the touch may seem like a poor mans iphone, open wifi networks are so rediculously common the slow data plan makes little sense. Plus, you still exclude everyone not using at&t. And, i like keeping my vital phone out of devices i have to charge daily.
post #64 of 93
One must understand the iPod Touch is very, very, very popular in places where iPhone is not widely legally available.
post #65 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post

The nano/mini have always been the best selling iPods since says after their launch

While the touch may seem like a poor mans iphone, open wifi networks are so rediculously common the slow data plan makes little sense. Plus, you still exclude everyone not using at&t. And, i like keeping my vital phone out of devices i have to charge daily.

No need to charge the iPhone daily. I use mine very heavily, for email, web, iPod functions and of course phone. I find I get about two days.
post #66 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

iPhone
Display
• 3.5-inch (diagonal) widescreen multi-touch display
• 480-by-320-pixel resolution at 163 pixels per inch

iPod Touch
Display
• 3.5-inch (diagonal) widescreen multi-touch display
• 480-by-320-pixel resolution at 163 ppi

How exactly is one sub-standard while being the same size and resolution?

They aren't exactly the same screen. I think iPhone is an 8 bit display and iTouch is a 6 bit display. I can tell the difference pretty quickly, iTouch's screen has a tiny bit of "flicker" to it. I really can't explain it, but it's the same flicker that I find in most regular cell phones, I really don't have much occasion to look at smartphones.
post #67 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by steviet02 View Post

I think you are way off on your estimates. As soon as you add a HDD to the device you have to make the battery thicker as well, you're going to want at least 5 hours out of it for music right? And video, 2 hrs maybe?

I'm just guessing based on removing the superfluous parts of each device. Even if you combine the battery volume, it wouldn't be too much thicker. You wouldn't need both main boards, both screens, the touch wheel isn't there and the case adds thickness too.
post #68 of 93
I think a lot of you guys will be very surprised at how well the iPod touch sells this holiday season.
post #69 of 93
The person who wrote this expects us to be surprised that something that sells for $149 or $199 US is selling better than something that sells at $299 and $399? What a genius!

Plus, the new nano is very sweet. Tiny, skinny, and video too.
post #70 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post

I think a lot of you guys will be very surprised at how well the iPod touch sells this holiday season.

Few are saying iTouch is selling poorly. It's just that the nano has a track record of being the top seller. Unfortunately, it's this human tendency to suggest that 2nd place is a horrible, worthless loser, and that tendency shows in the headline.
post #71 of 93
I keep seeing the nano's success being attributed to its price; its not just that. The new nano's are one of the best put together products that Apple has ever produced. Where this item excels is when you slip it into your pants pocket and forget that its there (and know that it will survive). Try doing that with a touch. I don't need or want a giant piece of electronic crap (no matter how awesome) cluttering up my pockets. Nor do I want a chunk of plastic and glass on my belt or in my shirt. I'm a fairly active guy and anything in any of those places cramps my style. Its the main reason I don't have an iphone. I'd love the easy interface and web access, but at the current size of the bloody thing, its only marginally more portable than a laptop (maybe a little hyperbole in that statement, but you get my point).
post #72 of 93
This whole story is stating the obvious. People have always bought way more of the nanos and before them the minis. People like the small size and the lower price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CREB View Post

The iPod Touch was never a very wise move, but Apple does not always have a hit on its hands.

Just because it's not their biggest seller doesn't mean it's not a wise move. Otherwise they'd just drop every model but the top selling one, which would be stupid. There is a market for the touch, even if it's a smaller segment it rounds out the product line. Same as the "classic" has been for the last couple years (and continues to be). And don't forget, since the touch is basically a stripped down iPhone, most of the development has already been paid for by the original model.

As cool as the touch is, I'm still getting a nano this christmas.

So how are Zune2 sales coming along? They have a new batch of ads on TV...is anyone buying? Their hard drive model seems OK, but with the tiny screen the flash model seems like a big loser compared to nano.
post #73 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCarbon View Post

I keep seeing the nano's success being attributed to its price; its not just that. The new nano's are one of the best put together products that Apple has ever produced. Where this item excels is when you slip it into your pants pocket and forget that its there (and know that it will survive).

Do you forget the scratches? You had better buy a $30 case first because that nano is going to get scratched fast!
One of the best products is the shuffle - hands down. Doesn't scratch easily. Apple should have made the back of the nano anodized like the front of it and the whole shuffle's body.
But Apple's wants you to buy another one after it gets all scratched up.
post #74 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

The person who wrote this expects us to be surprised that something that sells for $149 or $199 US is selling better than something that sells at $299 and $399? What a genius!

It's not all that obvious. You're not comparing identical products. The Touch has a very different feature set. By your logic (compare price, ignore features), the Shuffle, not the nano, should be their best seller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCarbon View Post

I don't need or want a giant piece of electronic crap (no matter how awesome) cluttering up my pockets. Nor do I want a chunk of plastic and glass on my belt or in my shirt.

Hear hear! I carry a Palm m515 PDA. It is far too bulky to fit in a pocket. I have to wear it in a leather pouch on my belt. Before I got that pouch, I carried it in my pants pocket, until a minor accident (involving some children and soccer ball) shattered the screen - even though it was stored in a "protective" aluminum cover.

The iPhone/Touch's giant glass face has the exact same problem. Too big for a pocket, and too easy to break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Do you forget the scratches? You had better buy a $30 case first because that nano is going to get scratched fast!

That was true for the 1st generation nano. I saw several of them scratched so badly you couldn't read the display. But that hasn't been the case for a long time. The second- and third-gen nanos have all-metal cases and more scratch-resistant displays. I've had my (second-gen) nano for a year and aside from some very minor wear on the back-side-printing, it looks the same as it did when it was new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Apple should have made the back of the nano anodized like the front of it and the whole shuffle's body.
But Apple's wants you to buy another one after it gets all scratched up.

So, I assume you also object to the Classic and the Touch? They have the same polished-metal back that the current nano does.
post #75 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Do you forget the scratches? You had better buy a $30 case first because that nano is going to get scratched fast!
One of the best products is the shuffle - hands down. Doesn't scratch easily. Apple should have made the back of the nano anodized like the front of it and the whole shuffle's body.
But Apple's wants you to buy another one after it gets all scratched up.

The new Nanos are made with the same anodized aluminium casing as the Shuffles.
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 #76 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The new Nanos are made with the same anodized aluminium casing as the Shuffles.

You're thinking of the second-gen model. On the current model, only the front is anodized aluminum. The back is the same polished metal surface that the Classic uses.
post #77 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

You're thinking of the second-gen model. On the current model, only the front is anodized aluminum. The back is the same polished metal surface that the Classic uses.

Ah, you are correct, Sir.
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 #78 of 93
Why hasn't anybody bitched about the sample size yet?

[Edit: I retract the below criticism after realizing that the sample size was larger than I thought. Sorry! (I still find the derived conclusions to be unfounded)]

This "analyst" report is what I would expect from a weekend project by a couple of highschool students.

In my opinion, AppleInsider should be embarrassed for publishing this report. It has zero credibility. There are plenty of rumors and news stories around such that it shouldn't be necessary to pad the site with such a low level of journalism.

Or at least a main point of the story should have been to point out that the analyst is basing their opinion on what amounts to a handful personal anecdotes. That's fine for forum participants. But when the info is depicted as coming from a factual source, we should expect better.
post #79 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

That's quite a clever spelling. Did you choose it because the correct spelling of analyst doesn't have "anal" in it like your version does?.....

....except that it does?

analyst.......
post #80 of 93
Apple will never do this BUT if they added bluetooth DUN access, along with HiFi wireless headsets, to a cell phone then the Verizon and Sprint, users could get Internet access when away from a WiFi connection. Bust as I said Apple would never do it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's iPod Touch losing out to iPod Nano at checkout lines