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 3

post #81 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jouster View Post

....except that it does?

analyst.......

You missed the joke
post #82 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timon View Post

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.

So you're saying the iPhone could be used by Verizon users for the same function that a wireless USB adapter (um, $20) could perform?
post #83 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

So you're saying the iPhone could be used by Verizon users for the same function that a wireless USB adapter (um, $20) could perform?

Do they really sell their adapters that cheaply? And would you really be comfortable with a USB stick for extended periods in a mobile situation? They are basically levers, anything that bumps into them can cause trouble.
post #84 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Do they really sell their adapters that cheaply? And would you really be comfortable with a USB stick in a mobile situation?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the OP not originally talking about tethering an iPhone to a PC, not so that it could use a 3G or 2G network, but so it could use the wifi capabilities of the iPhone? Which is to say, using the iPhone as a wifi NIC. $20.
post #85 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the OP not originally talking about tethering an iPhone to a PC, not so that it could use a 3G or 2G network, but so it could use the wifi capabilities of the iPhone? Which is to say, using the iPhone as a wifi NIC. $20.

I guess the OP is worded so poorly that it's hard to know. I don't think that your interpretation makes any sense because most notebooks have WiFi adapters. The only possible benefit is to have it in an inconvenient corner of the room if the signal is weak.
post #86 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I guess the OP is worded so poorly that it's hard to know. I don't think that your interpretation makes any sense because most notebooks have WiFi adapters. The only possible benefit is to have it in an inconvenient corner of the room if the signal is weak.

I think the OP's mind got ahead of him and was thinking about this great way of using an iPhone on Verizon, but didn't think through the implications
post #87 of 93
I have a 3rd gen ipod and a shuffle
their uses are completly different
THe main Ipod is great for airline travel and to plug into a car
the shuffle is great for the gym. I want a Touch, but not until the drive is at least 32 gigs
An Ipod Touch is best for use on a subway for video viewing. The wifi is a great feature for my work since i don't have a desk job and won't break my verizon contract and since ATT has lousy service in NYC
post #88 of 93
Fact!
post #89 of 93
If memory serves me right, it was Steve Jobs that said, "If anything is going to cannibalise an Apple product, I want it to be another Apple product." Or something similar to that anyway. I'm sure Apple doesn't mind that the Nano is outselling the Touch, as long as all their products are outselling the competition.
post #90 of 93
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


But the major real world use difference for me is that the audio quality seems to be inferior to every other current model. And the difference between the audio from Touch and the 5th Gen iPod it would be replacing is not subtle, according to the A/B I did today. (Same material, same headphones). If you don't intend to listen to music on it I guess the Touch is great, but I don't want to be PO'd while listening to stuff I know should sound more pleasing.
post #91 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

So, I assume you also object to the Classic and the Touch? They have the same polished-metal back that the current nano does.

NO, I object that Apple reverted back to a inferior casing for the Nano only. The 2nd generation was completely anodized- nothing shiny and prone to scratches as soon as you open the box like the new one.
post #92 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

NO, I object that Apple reverted back to a inferior casing for the Nano only. The 2nd generation was completely anodized- nothing shiny and prone to scratches as soon as you open the box like the new one.

I understand your objection. The full anodized case is possibly the most scratch resistant case I've ever seen. The shiny back is, by far, the least scratch resistant case I've ever seen.

Too often, when there are objections to the shiny back, the most common retort is, paraphrasing here, "but, everything scratches, so shut your yap". I really don't understand that response when it's quite a broad field. My Samsung phone, my Sanyo phone & my 2nd gen nano shows fewer scratches in six months of use than a shiny backed iPod shows in one week, with similar usage and handling.
post #93 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

An HDD defeats the directions the Touch is going in. I'm sure Apple won't miss one sale out of 40 million.

I'm sure they won't. I didn't intend to be Super Internet Bad-ass(tm) and imply that my market power can drive the company. All I meant is that there are two things Apple currently has in its iPod line that I find compelling: the touch interface and a staggering capacity. Unfortunately, they haven't put those two features on a single iPod. Since I own a Video, a Photo, a Mini, a Nano, a Shuffle, and a Phone I don't exactly need to buy a new iPod anytime soon -- so until the features I find compelling enough to do so are integrated in an iPod, I'm not interested. I've got enough low-capacity devices. I've got enough clickwheel devices. That's all.

Now, if a previous poster is correct and an HDD makes it impossible to do slick stuff like CoverFlow, I see a couple of workarounds, the most obvious being the use of a small amount of Flash for the OS and apps and an HDD for data storage. Data that needs to be rapidly available (like album art for CF) can also be stored/cached on the Flash. Or, I suppose, I can wait until 256 GB Flash becomes feasible.
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