am8449 wrote: »
I wonder who are buying iPod Touches.
Can anyone who has bought one recently chime in and say how you're using it?
So turn off TouchID for iTunes and App Stores purchases?
That's just about the smallest issue imaginable, Apple already provide a solution for it in iOS.
Incidentally, wouldn't it be cool if different fingerprints could be linked to different authorisations? I'd like that.
I agree with this as well. It's a great way to get people into the Apple ecosystem, who are otherwise using a Samsung phone.
What surprises me the most about the timing of this update is that they didn't wait until the 6S was released, and then released a 4.7" iPod Touch, which I'm sure gamers would love. The 4.7" screen is a long way from cannibalizing sales from the iPad mini. The 5.5" screen might create a dilemma, but it's still more portable for those for whom that's a prime consideration. Indeed, if Apple is positioning the Touch as an iPod Classic replacement once they introduce 256GB storage, then keeping it at 4" is a wise move.
The fact that the nano didn't add the ability to buy from the iTunes Store, or even stream music from Apple Music, tells me it isn't long for this world. The Shuffle stands the greatest chance of surviving, especially if they add wireless radios to it, and apps to control it from any device, including Android. Apple has made it clear Apple Music streaming is the future and a device that only plays music and can't do that won't survive much longer.
johnny mozzarella wrote: »
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.
multimedia wrote: »
Cellular, GPS & Touch ID are not necessary for ?WATCH to work well. WiFi is all one needs for most ?WATCH features to work perfectly.
GPS is a Maps feature but certainly not necessary.
The ?Pay setup for ?WATCH has nothing to do with Touch ID. That's why iPhone 5 and 5c are pairing supported.
And using ?Pay with the ?WATCH has nothing to do with being connected to the Internet on the ?WATCH side of the transaction. ?Pay info is confined to a locked box inside the ?WATCH.??????
When the iPhone 3G came out, I definitely wanted to try out the apps and games. But, I had zero interest in getting tied down to an exorbitant smartphone contract. So, I bought an iPod touch (2nd gen) and it quickly became the most heavily used device in our house. Bought a second one the following year, and my wife still uses it.
It wasn't until factory unlocked iPhones and contract-free plans became more widely available less than 3 years ago that I decided to start looking into an iPhone. Even though the obstacles to owning an iPhone have greatly diminished, the iPod touch still has many uses. And with the new A8-powered iPod touch, there's nothing out there that can come close to its performance for the price.
djsherly wrote: »
It doesn't *need* those things but how does that translate into a user experience? Anyone prepared to run around for a day with cell and gps off to test this theory out?
pmz wrote: »
Simply put, No.
Its Not "part of its functionality".
You don't understand the product. It its not a standalone product. Apple Watch is an extension of iPhone. Not just any iOS device. iPhone. Without iPhone, Apple Watch is a poor product. Just because, in your limited thought process, you imagine being OK with an Apple Watch that works so poorly as you desire it to...but actual customers (including you after a week), and Apple alike, would never want such a poor product on the market.
SpamSandwich wrote: »
The target audience for the touch are gamers and kids. You don't want junior buying thousands of dollars of games or other stuff off the web.
Given the ATVs have been using the same (basic or exact) chip as the iPod Touch since gen 2, does this mean the purported new ATV yet to be announced will sport similar internals as the new 6th gen iPod Touch?? Just curious. Love that Apple has updated the iPod line, can't wait to see what it might mean for a new ATV too.
jollypaul wrote: »
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.
multimedia wrote: »
Touch ID has nothing to do with being connected. It's local on the device only.
Can people STOP saying iPod Touch is for kids and STOP saying to discontinue this? I'm a college student ON A BUDGET and I use this. I have no phone, yet I can use it like one in Wifi (plus there's apps for that). This thing is great!
I am wondering with WiFi Calling, a would a 4G iPad + iPod Touch replaces an iPhone?
alcstarheel wrote: »
Yes it does if you want to do ? Pay.
woochifer wrote: »
I have a late-2006 white Intel iMac (Core2Duo processor, maxed out to 3 GB RAM). Eight years old, replaced a failed hard drive and logic board along the way, but still in use almost 24/7 for computing and as a media server to our home theater. It can only be upgraded through Lion.
I originally held out on upgrading to Lion because we still used several applications that relied on Rosetta (most notably MS Office 2004, which I kept because I had to use the VB scripts that Office 2008 disabled). We have since upgraded most of the applications (and MS restored VB scripts to Office 2011).
But, Snow Leopard is such a rock solid OS that I never felt the need to tamper with it. And I'd read a lot of mixed reviews about the drastic changes that Lion introduced, and how the performance and stability are a step down compared to Snow Leopard.
Still deciding on whether to switch to Lion. But, I might bite the bullet, since I have a feeling that we will likely buy at least a couple more iOS devices before we upgrade to a new Mac. The Mac/iOS compatibility has been important, because I primarily rely on local syncing rather than iCloud. Yet, I also hate to lose a great OS like Snow Leopard as my daily driver in the process. Decisions, decisions!
That is definitely an interesting scenario that could be the paradigm in a few (I say 3-5) years. The communication is with the watch, with a companion "screen & CPU/GPU" that gives the real-estate to view, and horse power for, graphics/gaming/apps.
I don't think it is happening with Apple Watch 2. There needs to be some improvements in shrinking the cellular radio chips, and some sizeable improvements in batter tech (which increases quite slowly YoY). There are a number of other functions that I am sure Apple has planned that will require more battery as well (GPS, watch screen on more/all of the time, more sensors), before adding in cellular connectivity. I am sure this is on the Apple roadmap though.
For all those that think the Apple Watch is a small, niche side show, they need to think about this paradigm further. And why it was so important for Apple to get into this when ready, and lead it.
Yep. It is why Apple is known for forward thinking, and nay-sayers on Internet forums have trouble getting the past right, let alone the future.