The days of Apple selling the latest tech are long gone.
64-bit mobile CPU?
People who find their iPhone's battery life woefully inadequate usually buy a battery case not a second device that has to be charged, managed and carried separately.
Not true. I carry my iPhone 6 in a holster on my hip in a very thin case that is designed to go hand-in-glove with the holster. I don't want a thick battery case, and I want to reserve my iPhone battery life for the things that it can do uniquely - cellular calls, cellular data capacities, GPS, etc.
Many of us with large iTunes libraries already carry a second device - a 160gb iPod Classic. Now we're at least able to get close to that capacity with a modern device that unlike the Classic, has not (yet) been obsoleted, is much slimmer, and offers a bunch additional functionality beyond what matters to us most - having access to our entire library, on the device in our hand (as opposed to via the cloud). I would have liked to have seen even more capacity, but this is a huge improvement over what's been available in the iPod Touch line to date.
I disrespectfully disagree. No it won't.
And when you add back in the context you edited out, you see I'm not asking for cutting edge technology. Just existing, affordable technology that's been available for years (256GB flash storage) and could easily have been implemented in this update. In fact, I have no doubt there were people in Apple who suggested using current storage capacities in this update and were overruled.
That case is hideous.
Your logic is hideous.
1983 wrote: »
Eddy Cue is the one I would like to see leave. The albatross around Apple's neck, he's the one responsible for Apple's lacklustre web services and Apple Music is not without its bugs too. But anyway this is a good iPod Touch upgrade, better than I was expecting - A8!
I'm glad that they didn't include Touch ID. Look at the iPad Mini 3 from last year, it cost $100 more, and that was basically for Touch ID and new colors.
If this iPod Touch included Touch ID, it would've cost considerably more, and then I would've had to read about the endless whining from people complaining about the price. Therefore, it is better that Touch ID was not included. Some people are going to complain regardless of what Apple does or doesn't do.
Apple did a real nice job with upgrading the iPod Touch. They have a winner here! This is going to appeal to a lot of people.
Many of us with large iTunes libraries already carry a second device - a 160gb iPod Classic...
You are the exception rather than the rule.
Few people are carrying a smartphone and an MP3 player these days.
That iPhone 6 battery case I mentioned earlier has 2000+ reviews.
Only a small % of people leave reviews and that is just one of the many battery cases available.
Apple is selling so few iPods they don't even have it at the top of their homepage anymore or release sales figures each quarter.
nolamacguy wrote: »
and putting TouchID on the iPod isn't going to put a dent in iPhone sales. that isn't why they didn't do it, as WF suggests.
as for iPhone -- if Apple labs came up w/ something new (saaaay, an ultra-sonic retina implant) that would gain steam and threaten the iPhone, Apple wouldnt hold it back. i dont know much clearer they could state this -- they know their products won't stay on top forever, and they'd rather be their own competitor than have someone elsewhere be their competitor. this is why before the iPhone was their king they killed their best iPod when it was at the top, only to replace it w/ something they felt was better.
iPod touch aint that to the iPod.
Why don't you try a mom joke next?
Block list, meet Johnny.
crowley wrote: »
No TouchId? Deal breaker.
Apple has always and probably always will make most of it's profits selling computers.
The model name of the computer(Lisa, ][, Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, ?Watch) isn't the important thing.
I just ordered an engraved 128GB iPodTouch in Blue. No more crappy 3rd Gen. Pink (was my wife's, and in a gray rubber case) 8gb nano with an iffy pause button.
*doing my happy Snoopy dance*
Agreed. Apple made the right decision here. And putting Touch ID on it, would've placed it into a completely different and higher price category. Apple knows what they're doing.
Yo mama so ugly, they changed Halloween to YoMamaween!
pmz wrote: »
You do understand that the reason the Apple Watch requires iPhone and is not a standalone product is the same reason why it will not ever be used with an iPod touch, right?
I have a purple fourth gen Nano I got from my sister. I feel you.
Color me pleasantly surprised by the A8! Very curious to see how this benchmarks versus the other A8 devices. With the 4" screen and lower resolution, the iPod touch has fewer millstones to drag on its performance.
Planned to get a pink one for my wife (she still refuses to get a smartphone, but carries a 3G iPod touch everywhere). But, then I saw the system requirements ... first iOS device that DOES NOT support Snow Leopard! Sign of things to come. Decision time now on whether I want to proceed with upgrading to OS X Lion in order to ensure compatibility with this and future iOS devices. Or if I want to stand pat with Snow Leopard and wait on a future Mac purchase before pulling the trigger on any new iOS devices.