An in-depth iPod Touch review

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    I'd really like to see a hard drive version of the touch. This would be the holy grail for many many iPod enthusiasts and would certainly get me to spend my money on one. I understand Apples desire to go with ram storage to keep the touch nice and thin, but I would gladly accept a slightly thicker iPod in exchange for 160 gigs of storage. Please Mr. Jobs, make it so....
  • Reply 22 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vman815 View Post


    ...well, you are supposed to be able to, according to Apple's documentation:



    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305741



    This page primarily talks about syncing for the iPhone and iPod touch. It implies that you could sync modified calendar items, but IMHO that's a stretch.



    Honestly though, I thought when the iPod touch was announced, one of the actual spec pages did say that you could add/modify calendar items, but if so, that page has since been modified or removed. Something has definitely changed on the pages because they at least used to mention the Calendar app, but now it isn't even mentioned at all.
  • Reply 23 of 44
    I was all set to go out and buy a touch, as I am in need of both a iPod and a PDA and refuse to switch to AT&T for the privilege of owning an iPhone.



    I was, until I found out that you can't even edit a darn calendar.



    There seems to be no good technical reason for this. Having an ipod with a functional calendar is not a technological hurdle (see iPhone).



    Bottom line is that the touch could have been a perfect product for many people but the boneheaded software restrictions are driving me to an inferior product.



    Poor form apple.



    Unless anyone out there knows how to hack the thing so I can add appointments to the calendar... Mail and maps would be sweet too.
  • Reply 24 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Being Flash RAM based...



    Thanks. I just died a little more.
  • Reply 25 of 44
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,296member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post


    A pox on Apple for intentionally crippling this device. AppleInsider's review was far too kind.



    Find a lawyer and file a class action lawsuit to force Apple to put the features you demand on the device. Problem solved. It took about three weeks for the first iPhone class action suit to be filed. Why not be the first to sue over the iTouch? It's the American way. Get with the program and all your desires will be fulfilled.
  • Reply 26 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Andy Anderson View Post


    A very nice review, but you've failed to emphasize one of the most important features of the iPod Touch: its much larger screen, 480 x 320, which is much closer to HD resolution than the standard iPod screen (currently 320 x 240).



    -- Andy



    And by that, I suppose you mean to say that it's almost reached the resolution of SDTV - which, with 480 lines of vertical resolution used by NTSC systems and a 4:3 aspect ratio, would clock in at 640x480 pixels.



    Now I'm not knocking 480x320. It certainly is a fine improvement over what we had before. But let's not fool ourselves regarding how close it is to HD resolutions.
  • Reply 27 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dtreichler View Post


    Can you download podcasts from the WiFi iTS?



    Sadly no. Same with video, incidentally, and the PDF booklets that sometimes come with albums (although those download when you sync back to your computer).



    I'm tempted, but until AppTap works on the touch it's not that useful for me (I need mail, for instance) and I would prefer the iPhone but? being in Canada we may never get it (where never = six months at least .
  • Reply 28 of 44
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    I got my Touch on release day last week and have been playing with it incessantly since.

    I'm one of those who yearned for an iPhone without the phone.

    That said, I'm 90% thrilled with the Touch. As a long-time nano user, I'm perfectly comfortable with the form factor, and like that better than the iPhone.

    I got some transparent skin for the back, not yet bothering with the front unless that seems necessary. That approach work perfectly with my old scratch-prone Nano, which still looks perfect.



    Shortcomings:

    1) Calendar (although until I really find a good way to coordinate my dual workstation issues (Mac with media at home, PC with calendar/contacts at work), I'll make little use of those features.

    2) Mail. This is stupid. Either Apple will see the error of their ways with an update, or a hack will emerge. I can use Gmail ok, although its not a pleasant experience.

    3) Google Maps. Again, kinda stupid not to include. Actually forgot to test that this weekend, and I'm at work with a LEAP encrypted network, so no joy until I go home. Again, this is a simple fix if Apple decides not to be jerks about it.

    4) No camera. That's my biggest disappointment.

    5) After judging all the 'I need more than 16 gig folks' as silly, I've now realized I have to start making better use of playlists (dumb and smart) since I now see that my music takes up 90% of my memory. Guess I have more sympathy for those with huge collections now. Live and learn.

    6) One feature I'd really like to see is a better network strenght meter so that I can pick the best available wi-fi. The 3-bar meter they have now is fairly useless. (or am I missing the existence of a better meter somewhere?)



    All in all, I really loveit, but now that I have 90% of what I need I can better wait out the next gen of iPhones (and/or service) for:



    1) support of corporate AT&T accounts

    2) more memory



    when that happens, my daughter gets this one.
  • Reply 29 of 44
    I think that developing and releasing a sophisticated portable OS X with some great core apps, and then releasing a platform where the user is not allowed to use these great apps... is very sad. It would be like selling a Mac Mini and restricting users from using Final Cut Pro, or MAYA... just because it's supposed to be a consumer Mac.

    Even though we will surely shortly find a software market on iTunes where we can buy software and fill up the black void on the "iPhod's" home screen... I find this attitude very disturbing. It shows us that Apple has taken a few steps too far, and needs to loosen up a bit.



    What the hell is the cal and the address book for if you can't alter them?? Great... grrrrr
  • Reply 30 of 44
    pmjoepmjoe Posts: 565member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post


    Honestly though, I thought when the iPod touch was announced, one of the actual spec pages did say that you could add/modify calendar items, but if so, that page has since been modified or removed. Something has definitely changed on the pages because they at least used to mention the Calendar app, but now it isn't even mentioned at all.



    I guess I was right ... Apple's website did previously say that you could enter calendar events.



    http://discussions.apple.com/thread....18125&tstart=0
  • Reply 31 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post


    I won't be buying the "iTouch" because of the lack of calendar editing. I use MS Outlook at work. I really want a way of editing in calendar events - meetings into my iPod calendar. Either the iTouch needs to have editing or .mac needs calendar editing. Actually either would work.



    So I assume you don't own an iPod either.



    In any event, if that is so important, why don't you buy an iPhone?
  • Reply 32 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


    And by that, I suppose you mean to say that it's almost reached the resolution of SDTV - which, with 480 lines of vertical resolution used by NTSC systems and a 4:3 aspect ratio, would clock in at 640x480 pixels.



    Now I'm not knocking 480x320. It certainly is a fine improvement over what we had before. But let's not fool ourselves regarding how close it is to HD resolutions.



    Thanks for catching this, I meant to say that the Touch resolution 480 x 320 has an aspect ratio (1.5) that's much closer to the HD aspect ratio (1.78), compared to the other iPods with 320 x 240 (1.33).



    Video for iPods is scaled down no matter what; my thought was that, with the better aspect ratio it won't need to be scaled as much (the scaling occurs in two dimensions, but the horizontal one is constraining, so the more you put into that one the better).



    Clearly there's a long way to go before true HD resolution is reached on devices such as these. The iPod Touch's pixel density is 165/in, to get true HD in this space it would need at least 1280 x 720 which is 2.67 times denser (440 ppi).



    ? Andy
  • Reply 33 of 44
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    Clearly there's a long way to go before true HD resolution is reached on devices such as these.



    There is no need for HD resolution on a 3.5" screen because the eye cannot resolve that much detail on that small of a screen.
  • Reply 34 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    There is no need for HD resolution on a 3.5" screen because the eye cannot resolve that much detail on that small of a screen.



    HD in this format would be 440 ppi. Compare 300 dpi paper printouts with 600 dpi printouts; you can tell the difference. You can even tell the difference between 600 dpi and 1200 dpi and higher (where the professional publishing industry prints, see e.g. Linotype).



    However, toss in the fact that it's video, with rapidly changing images, and you're much less likely to notice these small differences. So I'll agree that it probably wouldn't be noticeable by most people.



    Given the march of technology, I predict we will reach HD resolution at some point. It may be 20 years, but it will come!



    But getting back to the now, I would be surprised if most people wouldn't find watching video on a Touch significantly preferable to watching it on the other video-capable iPods (exclusive of some of the problems being reported).



    ? Andy
  • Reply 35 of 44
    takeotakeo Posts: 418member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Without the iPhone's integrated click-to-skip button, this means there's no easy way to jump to the next song or pause playback without directly interacting with its face. Users looking for an iPod that plays from a pocket might prefer the small Nano or large capacity Classic; the Touch is really designed to interact with, making it much better at video and interactive information browsing but not as exceptional as a hidden away MP3 player.



    Thanks to AppleInsider for finally pointing this out. To me, the iPod is more like using a mini-computer than using an iPod. You need two hands, you need to look at it and you need to do more "mousing around" with it. The click wheel is simpler and easier for just playing music... and really the only way to change songs from your pocket... with one hand... without looking. Imagine... a music player that doesn't have play / skip / back buttons?! You have to pull it out... hold it with one hand... look at it... and use the touch screen with the other hand. Sexy... cool... but not super practical. Then again... I suppose if you have a touch... you'd want to pull it out and show it off and marvel at the beauty and fun of the touch screen anyway... no sarcasm If I had one... I'd love to pull it out and play with it. But I just think the click wheel is simpler and easier in the long run... once the fun and novelty of the touch screen wears off. Again... I'm saying all of the above from the context of thinking of the iPod as essentially a music player. The touch is more than that.
  • Reply 36 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    The title pretty much sums it up, this review seems far to kind especially with respect to the devices rating.



    Interestingly I see the Touch as one of Apple's greatest achievements. The move to a touch screen on a device this size, along with OS/X is an excellent start. What is far from excellent though is the move by Apple to purposely hamstring the software supplied with the unit.



    It is this mentality that Apple has about what features to add to the device's software suite is what should have lowered the review considerably. If Apple can't or won't keep software parity with other devices in the family (iPhone) then it needs to consider if it is worth while to add the featured software at all. No one likes to have to deal with the modality of slightly different software revisions. In other words they would be better off not adding things like the calendar program if they feel the need to corrupt it.



    Combined this with not coming clean with a software development kit leads one to suspect that Apple just wants to manipulate the market. Not that all companies don't do that from time to time but in this case it appears to be a very negative thing for Apple. Why would they want to create so much negative consumer reaction is beyond me.



    Like it or not Apple has to realize that many people will see this thing as a mobile computer with media playing functions. It is not just an iPod. This because the unit has the potential to solve a lot of needs for people. The problem is the device needs to be open and well supported. Apples unwillingness to support this device as an equal member of the family is troublesome and brings into question where Apple is going with the devices.



    Ignoring all of the above one thing hardware wise that also should have affected the rating is that missing BlueTooth radio. While it may be very useful as a model without, to deliver the Touch without a model containing Bluetooth is a big mistake in my estimation. Even for media only users, the attractiveness of wireless head phones can't be denied. That doesn't even take into consideration what more advanced users would want to do with a BlueTooth port. Bluetooth should be available on at least one model of the Touch.



    So while the review was a interesting and wordy tome it seems to have missed significant issues and doesn't seem to be in sync with consumer expectations.



    Dave



    Wow. What a great post. I'm on that train -
  • Reply 37 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vman815 View Post


    ...well, you are supposed to be able to, according to Apple's documentation:



    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305741



    Maybe it's coming via software update?



    Read it carefully. There's nothing indicating the iPod Touch can make calendar entries. It's pretty slippery language, though - careful you don't fall off...



    (We're looking through you, Apple!)
  • Reply 38 of 44
    It's a shame that it doesnt deliver on its PDA functions.... No Mail.... No Add Events...



    Palm lives another day...
  • Reply 39 of 44
    The iPhone can download lower quality versions of YouTube videos over EDGE at reasonably decent speeds, although it is far more enjoyable to watch them over a much faster WiFi connection.



    Considering the horrendously poor quality of your average YouTube video, wouldn't "lower quality versions" of such low quality originals be practically unwatchable even on a 3.5-inch screen?
  • Reply 40 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    The title pretty much sums it up, this review seems far to kind especially with respect to the devices rating.

    ...



    So while the review was a interesting and wordy tome it seems to have missed significant issues and doesn't seem to be in sync with consumer expectations.



    Dave



    If you had really read the wordy article, you would understand that this review was judging the iPod touch only as an iPod. Not as a PDA or an iPhone without the phone or anything else that it is not. It describes how... as an iPod ...this device is great. It purposely ignores the fact that the device is not what a lot of people were hoping it was.
Sign In or Register to comment.