Apple unveils new 16GB iPod touch model without iSight, priced at $229

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Apple on Wednesday added a new iPod touch model to its lineup of iOS devices, with the $229 camera- and wrist-strap-less version being sold as a stripped-down iteration of the company's high-end media player.

iPod touch
Source: Apple


According to the Apple Online Store, currently the only place to find information about the new iPod, Apple's latest device features a 4-inch Retina display, dual-core A5 chip, and Apple EarPods. As predicted by KGI analyst Ming-Chi Kuo in January, the new touch, currently limited to a black-on-silver design, sheds the rear-facing iSight camera and wrist strap to drop the price of entry down to $229.

First spotted by The Verge, the iPod touch adds to the current 32GB and 64GB offerings, and appears to take the place of the now discontinued fourth-generation model line.

Interestingly, the new version retains the front-facing FaceTime camera and boasts the same connectivity options as its more expensive siblings. The only other change is the 16GB model's weight, which drops down to 3.04 ounces due to the camera delete and loss of the wrist strap holding button.

Apple launched the fifth-generation iPod touch in September of 2012 without a 16GB option, just as it did with the third-generation player. All other generations had capacities down to 8GB.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 66
    and yet the screenshot shows the camera app still ? - way to go on the quality control there Apple....
  • Reply 2 of 66
    Because it still has a front facing camera for face time etc.
  • Reply 3 of 66
    applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,570member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mad Mac Man View Post



    and yet the screenshot shows the camera app still ? - way to go on the quality control there Apple....


    There is a front facing camera genius. 


     


    Boom!  There it is!


    I like the element of surprise in this new release.  Keep' em coming Apple. image

  • Reply 4 of 66
    macvictamacvicta Posts: 346member
    Are the iPads due to receive the same treatment next?

    And they can leave out the FaceTime cameras too if it'll make them even cheaper, I never use them.
  • Reply 5 of 66
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member


    It's now cheaper than the Classic, I wonder if it will finally be for the chopping block soon.

  • Reply 6 of 66
    bclapperbclapper Posts: 237member
    The British version is quite shy, no pic of the device, just a plain brown box :)
    [IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/25841/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
    http://d.pr/i/d8Hs
  • Reply 7 of 66
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,173member
    Interesting that Apple can do this on iPods but not iPhones. Obviously they need a cheaper iPhone first, but they can differentiate with removing cameras on that as they wish.

  • Reply 8 of 66
    danielswdanielsw Posts: 905member
    This is an interesting strategy for Apple which not only offers a lower-priced model of a higher-end iPod, by eliminating a feature some people may not need or want, while reducing its storage capacity which is consequently not needed as much, and simultaneously expanding the potential demand iPods as well as for apps and services (FaceTime, iCloud, etc.).
  • Reply 9 of 66
    pedromartinspedromartins Posts: 1,333member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post



    Interesting that Apple can do this on iPods but not iPhones. Obviously they need a cheaper iPhone first, but they can differentiate with removing cameras on that as they wish.

     


    Removing the camera? hell no.

  • Reply 10 of 66
    harry wildharry wild Posts: 546member
    Ho Humm release! Oh my! Talk about a non-event... this is close to being it!
  • Reply 11 of 66
    fotoformatfotoformat Posts: 280member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Harry Wild View Post



    Ho Humm release! Oh my! Talk about a non-event... this is close to being it!


     


    So Al's (AppleInsider, not Jolson) response would be, "I'm just not wild about Harry..."

  • Reply 12 of 66
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,076member
    harry wild wrote: »
    Ho Humm release! Oh my! Talk about a non-event... this is close to being it!

    I must have missed the "event" Apple held for this.

    Jesus Christ. Would you have rather this story not be reported? It's a new model, which is more newsworthy than most things in the past while. And one which many people might want. Stop with the shitty trolling.
  • Reply 13 of 66
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    harry wild wrote: »
    Ho Humm release! Oh my! Talk about a non-event... this is close to being it!

    That might explain why they didn't make it into an event.

    Really, what's with that negativity?
  • Reply 14 of 66


    Seems a bit perplexing to me. The costs involved in the variation of the manufacturing process must be quite high for what seems to me a rather niche product offering less than something better at only a small amount more. Are people who buy iPod Touches *that* price conscious? It seems to me to be diluting the iPod Touch range a little bit and for a product line that doesn't have a great impact on Apple's bottom line, I wonder why they've done it...

  • Reply 15 of 66
    plovellplovell Posts: 786member
    Cheaper than the Classic? That's true, but only one-tenth the capacity.

    I can fit my 145G music library on a Classic so I hope they keep it.
  • Reply 16 of 66
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 18,813member
    I think Apple is testing out a variant to see how adoption goes, before implementing something similar on the iPhone.

    I think it's a bad idea, overall. Making it a few bucks cheaper won't make it more appealing, considering that a basic camera is a rather core feature in most handheld devices now.

    I call 'fail' on this one.
  • Reply 17 of 66
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 18,813member
    plovell wrote: »
    Cheaper than the Classic? That's true, but only one-tenth the capacity.

    I can fit my 145G music library on a Classic so I hope they keep it.

    Agreed. I couldn't live without my classic.
  • Reply 18 of 66
    pedromartinspedromartins Posts: 1,333member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CogitoDexter View Post


    Seems a bit perplexing to me. The costs involved in the variation of the manufacturing process must be quite high for what seems to me a rather niche product offering less than something better at only a small amount more. Are people who buy iPod Touches *that* price conscious? It seems to me to be diluting the iPod Touch range a little bit and for a product line that doesn't have a great impact on Apple's bottom line, I wonder why they've done it...



    Because the a5 is needed for the new OS?


     


    Because it is better to have the same screen and resolution between the iPod and Mac lines?


     


    Because the other was outdated?


     


    Because they sell 6 million iPod touches per quarter and that's important for iOS as a platform?


     


    Because they do what they want to do?

  • Reply 19 of 66
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    plovell wrote: »
    Cheaper than the Classic? That's true, but only one-tenth the capacity.

    I can fit my 145G music library on a Classic so I hope they keep it.
    Agreed. I couldn't live without my classic.

    It's the Engergizer Bunny of iPod models.

    It would seem that they'll keep it until the Touch is offered in 128GB. Then it would be "close enough" in size to drop the Classic model. You might see a 256GB model year or two after that.
  • Reply 20 of 66
    nchianchia Posts: 120member
    No more wrist strap?
Sign In or Register to comment.