Apple launches new iPod touch with 64-bit A8 CPU, 8MP camera, M8 motion coprocessor & 128GB capacity

1234568

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 173
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,371member
    Out of curiosity: could someone who feels that the ability to pair the iPod touch to the watch is a good idea please illustrate some real use cases for this?
    No trolling intended, just genuinely curious.
  • Reply 142 of 173
    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?

    I bought my first iPod touch five years ago since I couldn't afford a iPhone but was curious of it. After one month of use I KNEW that I just had to buy an iPhone wether I could afford it or not. The experience was just so much better than anything I had seen. The iPod touch is the perfect gateway into iOS, I'm gonna buy a apple watch this Friday when it's released in my country.
  • Reply 143 of 173
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,910member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    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.



    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.

  • Reply 144 of 173
    crossladcrosslad Posts: 495member
    The iPod is a great introductory device to the iPhone as well as being a great handheld computer. My teenage daughter, a former Blackberry user got an iPod touch to use on holiday as a way of face timing homes and use Facebook on the free wifi. She then switched phones to iPhones and has been an iPhone user ever since. It is a great business tool for carrying presentation on and also a great computer when hooked up to a tv with Apple TV and a Bluetooth keyboard. Perfect for kids to do their homework on or even business users. The only limit to what can be done on an iPod touch is your imagination.
  • Reply 145 of 173
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,448member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crosslad View Post



    The iPod is a great introductory device to the iPhone as well as being a great handheld computer. 

    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. 

  • Reply 146 of 173
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,510member

    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.

    Good point
  • Reply 147 of 173
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,020member
    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.??????
    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?
  • Reply 148 of 173
    woochiferwoochifer Posts: 365member

    Quote:


    Originally Posted by mangakatten View Post





    I bought my first iPod touch five years ago since I couldn't afford a iPhone but was curious of it. After one month of use I KNEW that I just had to buy an iPhone wether I could afford it or not. The experience was just so much better than anything I had seen. The iPod touch is the perfect gateway into iOS, I'm gonna buy a apple watch this Friday when it's released in my country.

    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.

  • Reply 149 of 173
    multimediamultimedia Posts: 868member
    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?
    I have an ?WATCH SPORT and I know without the above it will still be fine. I use the alarm and timer a lot and the wi-fi derived tracking-mapping will be almost as good as GPS. Anyway the idea of pairing with non iPhone devices is at this point only an intellectual speculation. Not yet a reality. So don't worry. Apple engineers will figure all this out.

    If you want an ?WATCH now, you can calibrate it for exercise with anyone else's iPhone. Only takes a 20 minute walk or run. After that it can be on its own.
  • Reply 150 of 173
    multimediamultimedia Posts: 868member
    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.
    I've had an ?WATCH SPORT on my wrist since the morning of April 28 so I think I understand the product pretty well. I don't perceive it as an iPhone accessory - that's your problem - but as the dual core 1GHz computer that it is. There is nothing poor about ?WATCH without the iPhone. I can still play 2GB of 420 songs that are on it. I can still use the Alarm and Timer apps. I can still see what time it is. Besides, we're not talking about an ?WATCH without access to a device. We're talking about iPads and iPod touches that are still communicating with the Internet and the ?WATCH via Wi-Fi and Bluetooth respectively or BOTH ways. Do you own an ?WATCH? Reads like you don't.

    By the way, all you Touch ID fans? Touch ID has NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERNET CONNECTIVITY. Touch ID is in a LOCK BOX inside your device. So get off your ignorance about thinking Touch ID needs internet connectivity. And ?WATCH ?Pay works WITHOUT ANY Touch ID at all. Same LOCK BOX for ?Pay info is on the ?WATCH. Nothing to do with Internet connectivity at all. ?WATCH ?Pay works WITHOUT any iPhone connection at all. You can leave your iPhone at home and still ?Pay with your ?WATCH all day long wherever its accepted. A lot of non ?WATCH owners are here who don't understand ?Pay nor the nuances of stand alone ?WATCH capabilities.??????????????????????
  • Reply 151 of 173
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    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.

    The excuses you guys make for Apple are just.... *Shaking my head*

    First off, these kids don't have credit cards so they can't go on shopping sprees. TouchID alone does not allow you to buy "thousands of dollars" worth of stuff. without a credit card it's no different than this iPod without TouchID.
    EVEN WITH a card Apple solved this problem long ago with the "ask permission" function.
    SMH

    The best explanation I could think of is to avoid problems in enterprise.
    Imagine firing Tony then finding out his work device is TouchID locked? Or a restaurant shares 5 iPods that need to be returned at the end of shifts and someone locks one.
    I still don't think this justifies the absence of the feature and there should be easy workarounds that Apple could implement like setting up the devices as company devices.

    ***
    I just find it disappointing that a device that may not be updated until 2018 or never, lacks future proofing tech like TouchID and NFC.
    Especially since they're trying to have ?Pay take off. (Yes, people who can afford an iPod touch and even middle class teens can afford a soda pop)

    And those thinking it would canibalize iPhone sales. NO. With iPhone 6s around the corner I doubt people will be lining up for iPod touches instead. Smh.
  • Reply 152 of 173

    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.

  • Reply 153 of 173
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    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.

    I didn't edit any context out. you claimed the days of Apple supplying the latest tech is over, I'm saying that's not usually the case with Apple. "latest tech" needn't been limited to storage tech, as you're pivoting on now.
  • Reply 154 of 173
    multimedia wrote: »
    Touch ID has nothing to do with being connected. It's local on the device only.

    Yes it does if you want to do ? Pay.
  • Reply 155 of 173
    trumptrump Posts: 5member

    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!

  • Reply 156 of 173
    ksecksec Posts: 1,562member

    I am wondering with WiFi Calling, a would a 4G iPad + iPod Touch replaces an iPhone?

  • Reply 157 of 173
    Yes it does if you want to do ? Pay.

    You don't need internet for ApplePay either, heard of the Watch?
  • Reply 158 of 173
    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!

    Yeah, Lion will be a bit slower but it should be okay. You may want to look at an SSD.
  • Reply 159 of 173
    peteopeteo Posts: 365member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucemc View Post

    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.

     

    I think you are correct in it not happening 2nd or maybe even 3rd gen. Battery is the big sticking point. The watch CPU & screen do not need much power but celluar takes allot of power. Of course with the watch on your arm all the time, you would need less power to get good reception compared to in a pocket or purse (allowing the cellular chip to use less power). Also maybe they can add built in solar/motion charging to help with the battery. Seems to me this is where we are headed. No need to have 4-5-6 inch screens with you at all times if you have a watch that can do 70% of what you need to do.
  • Reply 160 of 173
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,528member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by peteo View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brucemc View Post

     

    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.


     




    I think you are correct in it not happening 2nd or maybe even 3rd gen. Battery is the big sticking point. The watch CPU & screen do not need much power but celluar takes allot of power. Of course with the watch on your arm all the time, you would need less power to get good reception compared to in a pocket or purse (allowing the cellular chip to use less power). Also maybe they can add built in solar/motion charging to help with the battery. Seems to me this is where we are headed. No need to have 4-5-6 inch screens with you at all times if you have a watch that can do 70% of what you need to do.



    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.