Apple launches $199 16GB iPod touch with rear camera in 6 colors, slashes prices on 32GB & 64GB mode

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 116
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member

    I don't know how the nano even stays in the lineup with the 16GB Touch now priced just $50 more.

     

     

  • Reply 42 of 116
    Have the iPods always been spaced with those price differences based on hard drive space? This could foreshadow the pricing scheme changes for the iPhone with 16 gig being $199, 32 gig being $249, and 64 gig being $299. That would make a lot of people happy that complain about the up charge for getting the higher hard drive variants.
    Nope it'd be great if iPhones where, or 32 gb bottom and then $100 increases

    adrayven wrote: »
    Maybe this is a sign that bump in space will no longer go up $100 for double space on the iPhone as well??? now $50? ($199, $249, $300)

    Once can hope....

    blackbook wrote: »
    I doubt this will have any effect on iPhone pricing.

    But this does likely mean that the iPod touch will not see a redesign this year. No 4.7 or 5.5 inch screen size upgrade.
    Or this will be maintained while new iPod, is moved to a higher price at or near iPhone.($400 maybe for 5S specs)
    robertsm wrote: »
    Since this has an A5 is it safe to say it won't be able to upgrade to ios8?
  • Reply 43 of 116
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,504member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

     

    The iWatch? It might end up being a "hobby" for a couple of years. Like the iPad, the initial model might have modest/conservative specs and functionality. Again, a wearable would likely rely on the latest iOS so it would be difficult to ship new hardware before the operating system is released. Of course, there's always the possibility of an iOS fork to help get a wearable out the door, but that probably would not be Apple's preference. The market for wearables is still very much in its infancy. Better to get it right rather put out a lackluster early effort.


     

    I seriously doubt Apple will use iOS on their wearable. It might be based on OS X (Darwin actually), just as iOS is, but most likely it will be a separate embedded operating system with a customized kernel and a lot of unnecessary components stripped out for efficiency.

     

    If there is one thing Apple has proven, it is that you don't need to have "One OS Everywhere" just as long as they can seamlessly inter-mingle.

  • Reply 44 of 116
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member

    How many iPod Touch Apple sold last quarter/year?  Apple could turn around the iPod business with todays changes.  I have been preaching Apple to start iPad model with 32GB for a long time. 

  • Reply 45 of 116
    macxpress wrote: »
    Clearing inventories....

    Apple doesn't keep much stock on hand.

    The next iPod Touch probably won't come out for another 3 months... so I doubt they have warehouses full of iPods they are trying to get rid of.

    And considering that the iPod Touch has waned in popularity over the past few years... they probably weren't making that many of them anyway.
  • Reply 46 of 116
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mpantone wrote: »
    It doesn't matter how Apple's manufacturing partners really run their factories. Apple would say "we need 100,000 grey iPod touches -- this will be our last order" anyhow. Apple owns the components in the parts bins. If they are end-of-lifing a product, they would halt component purchases before the last one was assembled.

    Sure it matters. Again, do you really think they buying components and running an assembly for 30-45 days of iPod Classic sales?

    mjtomlin wrote: »
    I seriously doubt Apple will use iOS on their wearable. It might be based on OS X (Darwin actually), just as iOS is, but m<span style="line-height:1.4em;">ost likely it will be a separate embedded operating system with a customized kernel and a lot of unnecessary components stripped out for </span>
    efficiency.

    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">If there is one thing Apple has proven, it is that you don't need to have "One OS Everywhere" just as long as they can seamlessly inter-mingle.</span>

    I'd think if they were trying to make iOS efficient enough for a wearable that includes a touchscreen they would have introduced it with the iPod Nano.
  • Reply 47 of 116
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    "Apple launches $199 16GB iPod touch with rear camera in 6 colors"

    Wow! A rear camera in 6 colors!

    To me that reads like something anyone would understand.

    A friend just broke down and swapped out her 11 year old daughter's iPod Touch for an iPhone 5C.

    Careful there, some might think you have a friend who swapped out his daughter¡

    john.b wrote: »
    I don't know how the nano even stays in the lineup with the 16GB Touch now priced just $50 more.

    My guess is some people prefer a smaller device. The word pocket ability comes to mind. For me, that's a small iPhone, like the 3.5" version, though that measurement only applies to the screen diagonal.
  • Reply 48 of 116
    sdbryansdbryan Posts: 348member
    The fifth generation iPod touch is listed as upgradeable to iOS8 so these iPods would be also. I hope this is being done to clear inventory for a next generation iPod touch with the new processor chip. If Apple really wanted to cause some disruption it could include an option for month to month cellular data like the iPads.

    The iPhone is already mainly a data device. By dropping the mostly pointless legacy crappy telephony component but retaining connectivity, Apple would have a killer device that would take the 'rapid followers' more than a weekend to attack.

    I guess what I am really advocating is that Apple continue to make a pocket sized iPad device but add a cellular data radio.
  • Reply 49 of 116
    mvigodmvigod Posts: 172member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

     

     

    I would love to see a pricing spread like that for storage capacities on the iPhone. The way it is right now is absolutely ridiculous -- $100 to go from 16GB to 32GB? What is this, 2009?


     

    10000% agree. It is one of the reasons I would consider a Galaxy S5 even.  The knowledge of how bad apple is raping us for extra memory and also not providing support for SD card.  I don't mind paying a small premium for Apple in general.  I also don't mind paying even a little above fair market for extra memory.  I don't have the stomach for getting raped on memory knowing what it costs them (or me)

  • Reply 50 of 116
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I'm not really keen on this 5.5" iPhone rumour but it's two year since they've updated the HW and components in the iPods, save for a colour change last year, so I'm expecting them to be updated this year. I can see a 5.5" iPod Touch giving back some popularity to the platform and I hope that all devices in that size come with a digitizer as it's good size for mobile retail and commercial applications, like the Apple Store. I think the digitizer in the Galaxy Note is one area Samsung nailed it, and even though they included their own APIs it's not nearly as good or as complete as what Apple can do with that tech. Does iOS 8 comes with some new digitizer APIs? I had thought I read that.
    Unlikely to happen me thinks! Nice if it did though.
  • Reply 51 of 116
    The iPod Shuffle and the previous gen (clip-on) nano are already an example of a "wearable device."
  • Reply 52 of 116
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    The iPod Shuffle and the previous gen (clip-on) nano are already an example of a "wearable device."

    You could technically put headphones in there, especially ones that had the AM or AM/FM radio and later an MP3 player built into the set.
  • Reply 53 of 116
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by robertsm View Post

    Since this has an A5 is it safe to say it won't be able to upgrade to ios8?

     

    Uh… been to the iOS 8 page? Ever?

     

    Originally Posted by pmz View Post

    The iPod touch is a weak product. Its niche market is smaller than AppleTV. This aggressive pricing is in response to weak demand. Nothing more.


     

    Any proof of that?

     

    Originally Posted by pmz View Post

    What you just saw here is the extent of the iPod touch updates for 2014.


     

    So when you’re wrong, we have leave to mock and deride you? I won’t, but still.

     

    Originally Posted by michaeloftroy View Post

    With Apple doing these refreshes sans press events, it really makes me think they have A LOT to cover come fall.

     

    Why? Don’t think that. This isn’t worthy of a press event. That’s why they didn’t have one.

     

    Originally Posted by sdbryan View Post

    I guess what I am really advocating is that Apple continue to make a pocket sized iPad device but add a cellular data radio.

     

    How can so many people be [pick an insult] enough to want a SMALLER iPad?! Smaller tablets and bigger phones? How [same insult] can people be?! 

  • Reply 54 of 116
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,889member
    mvigod wrote: »
    10000% agree. It is one of the reasons I would consider a Galaxy S5 even.  The knowledge of how bad apple is raping us for extra memory and also not providing support for SD card.  I don't mind paying a small premium for Apple in general.  I also don't mind paying even a little above fair market for extra memory.  I don't have the stomach for getting raped on memory knowing what it costs them (or me)

    You're not getting "raped". No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. I take offense to using such a term on a product.
  • Reply 55 of 116
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jungmark wrote: »
    You're not getting "raped". No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. I take offense to using such a term on a product.

    I wonder how actual rape victims feel when someone uses that term to indicate a completely voluntary purchase decision?
  • Reply 56 of 116
    mvigodmvigod Posts: 172member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    You're not getting "raped". No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. I take offense to using such a term on a product.

     

     

    You clearly don't understand the english language or all the official the definitions of the word:

     

    an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside

     

    an outrageous violation

     

     

    Sure nobody is forcing anyone to buy an iphone but that is not required by definition.  

  • Reply 57 of 116
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    I wonder how actual rape victims feel when someone uses that term to indicate a completely voluntary purchase decision?

     

    I seem to be the type to make the most of a bad situation. I mock my disability at any chance I get, and I’ve always figured that if I was blind/deaf, etc. I’d make ALL the blind/deaf, etc. jokes I could.

     

    I’m sure I’d do the same thing for rape. “Hoo, we’re really getting raped on prices here. Believe me; I’d know!” or something.

     

    But we’re not getting raped, screwed, gypped, swindled, bamboozled, hornswoggled, or schnozwrangled on prices here

  • Reply 58 of 116
    pscooter63pscooter63 Posts: 1,059member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

     

    You clearly don't understand the english language or all the official the definitions of the word:

     

    an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside

     

    an outrageous violation

     

    Sure nobody is forcing anyone to buy an iphone but that is not required by definition.  


     

    You quoted, of four common definitions, the LEAST common of them all, according to dictionary.com.  The other more common three definitions are what folks here are reacting to.

     

    Given that you can't bother to capitalize or punctuate correctly in your post, your grasp of the English language and common usage is far more questionable.

  • Reply 59 of 116
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,889member
    mvigod wrote: »

    You clearly don't understand the english language or all the official the definitions of the word:

    an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: <em style="color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline;font-style:italic;"><span><span>the</span> <span>rape</span> <span>of</span> <span>the</span> <span>countryside</span></span></em>


    an outrageous violation


    Sure nobody is forcing anyone to buy an iphone but that is not required by definition.  
    So how is Apple doing any of those things? Perhaps you should read he definition again.
  • Reply 60 of 116
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sdbryan View Post



    The fifth generation iPod touch is listed as upgradeable to iOS8 so these iPods would be also. I hope this is being done to clear inventory for a next generation iPod touch with the new processor chip. If Apple really wanted to cause some disruption it could include an option for month to month cellular data like the iPads.



    The iPhone is already mainly a data device. By dropping the mostly pointless legacy crappy telephony component but retaining connectivity, Apple would have a killer device that would take the 'rapid followers' more than a weekend to attack.



    I guess what I am really advocating is that Apple continue to make a pocket sized iPad device but add a cellular data radio.



    You can connect to internet via a smartphone which acts as a hotspot.  You do not need the cellular built in iPod because you need a smartphone anyway. 

Sign In or Register to comment.