That is right just go to Apples web site sand look at its numbers. For iPods, Nano's come first closely followed by the Touch. Basically this guy, in action with the original poster, just yanked a lot of chains. Applying importance to this set of statements is clearly a big mistake.
The nano/mini have always been the best selling iPods since says after their launch
While the touch may seem like a poor mans iphone, open wifi networks are so rediculously common the slow data plan makes little sense. Plus, you still exclude everyone not using at&t. And, i like keeping my vital phone out of devices i have to charge daily.
The nano/mini have always been the best selling iPods since says after their launch
While the touch may seem like a poor mans iphone, open wifi networks are so rediculously common the slow data plan makes little sense. Plus, you still exclude everyone not using at&t. And, i like keeping my vital phone out of devices i have to charge daily.
No need to charge the iPhone daily. I use mine very heavily, for email, web, iPod functions and of course phone. I find I get about two days.
How exactly is one sub-standard while being the same size and resolution?
They aren't exactly the same screen. I think iPhone is an 8 bit display and iTouch is a 6 bit display. I can tell the difference pretty quickly, iTouch's screen has a tiny bit of "flicker" to it. I really can't explain it, but it's the same flicker that I find in most regular cell phones, I really don't have much occasion to look at smartphones.
I think you are way off on your estimates. As soon as you add a HDD to the device you have to make the battery thicker as well, you're going to want at least 5 hours out of it for music right? And video, 2 hrs maybe?
I'm just guessing based on removing the superfluous parts of each device. Even if you combine the battery volume, it wouldn't be too much thicker. You wouldn't need both main boards, both screens, the touch wheel isn't there and the case adds thickness too.
The person who wrote this expects us to be surprised that something that sells for $149 or $199 US is selling better than something that sells at $299 and $399? What a genius!
Plus, the new nano is very sweet. Tiny, skinny, and video too.
I think a lot of you guys will be very surprised at how well the iPod touch sells this holiday season.
Few are saying iTouch is selling poorly. It's just that the nano has a track record of being the top seller. Unfortunately, it's this human tendency to suggest that 2nd place is a horrible, worthless loser, and that tendency shows in the headline.
I keep seeing the nano's success being attributed to its price; its not just that. The new nano's are one of the best put together products that Apple has ever produced. Where this item excels is when you slip it into your pants pocket and forget that its there (and know that it will survive). Try doing that with a touch. I don't need or want a giant piece of electronic crap (no matter how awesome) cluttering up my pockets. Nor do I want a chunk of plastic and glass on my belt or in my shirt. I'm a fairly active guy and anything in any of those places cramps my style. Its the main reason I don't have an iphone. I'd love the easy interface and web access, but at the current size of the bloody thing, its only marginally more portable than a laptop (maybe a little hyperbole in that statement, but you get my point).
This whole story is stating the obvious. People have always bought way more of the nanos and before them the minis. People like the small size and the lower price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREB
The iPod Touch was never a very wise move, but Apple does not always have a hit on its hands.
Just because it's not their biggest seller doesn't mean it's not a wise move. Otherwise they'd just drop every model but the top selling one, which would be stupid. There is a market for the touch, even if it's a smaller segment it rounds out the product line. Same as the "classic" has been for the last couple years (and continues to be). And don't forget, since the touch is basically a stripped down iPhone, most of the development has already been paid for by the original model.
As cool as the touch is, I'm still getting a nano this christmas.
So how are Zune2 sales coming along? They have a new batch of ads on TV...is anyone buying? Their hard drive model seems OK, but with the tiny screen the flash model seems like a big loser compared to nano.
I keep seeing the nano's success being attributed to its price; its not just that. The new nano's are one of the best put together products that Apple has ever produced. Where this item excels is when you slip it into your pants pocket and forget that its there (and know that it will survive).
Do you forget the scratches? You had better buy a $30 case first because that nano is going to get scratched fast!
One of the best products is the shuffle - hands down. Doesn't scratch easily. Apple should have made the back of the nano anodized like the front of it and the whole shuffle's body.
But Apple's wants you to buy another one after it gets all scratched up.
The person who wrote this expects us to be surprised that something that sells for $149 or $199 US is selling better than something that sells at $299 and $399? What a genius!
It's not all that obvious. You're not comparing identical products. The Touch has a very different feature set. By your logic (compare price, ignore features), the Shuffle, not the nano, should be their best seller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCarbon
I don't need or want a giant piece of electronic crap (no matter how awesome) cluttering up my pockets. Nor do I want a chunk of plastic and glass on my belt or in my shirt.
Hear hear! I carry a Palm m515 PDA. It is far too bulky to fit in a pocket. I have to wear it in a leather pouch on my belt. Before I got that pouch, I carried it in my pants pocket, until a minor accident (involving some children and soccer ball) shattered the screen - even though it was stored in a "protective" aluminum cover.
The iPhone/Touch's giant glass face has the exact same problem. Too big for a pocket, and too easy to break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Do you forget the scratches? You had better buy a $30 case first because that nano is going to get scratched fast!
That was true for the 1st generation nano. I saw several of them scratched so badly you couldn't read the display. But that hasn't been the case for a long time. The second- and third-gen nanos have all-metal cases and more scratch-resistant displays. I've had my (second-gen) nano for a year and aside from some very minor wear on the back-side-printing, it looks the same as it did when it was new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Apple should have made the back of the nano anodized like the front of it and the whole shuffle's body.
But Apple's wants you to buy another one after it gets all scratched up.
So, I assume you also object to the Classic and the Touch? They have the same polished-metal back that the current nano does.
Do you forget the scratches? You had better buy a $30 case first because that nano is going to get scratched fast!
One of the best products is the shuffle - hands down. Doesn't scratch easily. Apple should have made the back of the nano anodized like the front of it and the whole shuffle's body.
But Apple's wants you to buy another one after it gets all scratched up.
The new Nanos are made with the same anodized aluminium casing as the Shuffles.
The new Nanos are made with the same anodized aluminium casing as the Shuffles.
You're thinking of the second-gen model. On the current model, only the front is anodized aluminum. The back is the same polished metal surface that the Classic uses.
You're thinking of the second-gen model. On the current model, only the front is anodized aluminum. The back is the same polished metal surface that the Classic uses.
Why hasn't anybody bitched about the sample size yet?
[Edit: I retract the below criticism after realizing that the sample size was larger than I thought. Sorry! (I still find the derived conclusions to be unfounded)]
This "analyst" report is what I would expect from a weekend project by a couple of highschool students.
In my opinion, AppleInsider should be embarrassed for publishing this report. It has zero credibility. There are plenty of rumors and news stories around such that it shouldn't be necessary to pad the site with such a low level of journalism.
Or at least a main point of the story should have been to point out that the analyst is basing their opinion on what amounts to a handful personal anecdotes. That's fine for forum participants. But when the info is depicted as coming from a factual source, we should expect better.
Apple will never do this BUT if they added bluetooth DUN access, along with HiFi wireless headsets, to a cell phone then the Verizon and Sprint, users could get Internet access when away from a WiFi connection. Bust as I said Apple would never do it.
Comments
Dave
While the touch may seem like a poor mans iphone, open wifi networks are so rediculously common the slow data plan makes little sense. Plus, you still exclude everyone not using at&t. And, i like keeping my vital phone out of devices i have to charge daily.
The nano/mini have always been the best selling iPods since says after their launch
While the touch may seem like a poor mans iphone, open wifi networks are so rediculously common the slow data plan makes little sense. Plus, you still exclude everyone not using at&t. And, i like keeping my vital phone out of devices i have to charge daily.
No need to charge the iPhone daily. I use mine very heavily, for email, web, iPod functions and of course phone. I find I get about two days.
iPhone
Display
• 3.5-inch (diagonal) widescreen multi-touch display
• 480-by-320-pixel resolution at 163 pixels per inch
iPod Touch
Display
• 3.5-inch (diagonal) widescreen multi-touch display
• 480-by-320-pixel resolution at 163 ppi
How exactly is one sub-standard while being the same size and resolution?
They aren't exactly the same screen. I think iPhone is an 8 bit display and iTouch is a 6 bit display. I can tell the difference pretty quickly, iTouch's screen has a tiny bit of "flicker" to it. I really can't explain it, but it's the same flicker that I find in most regular cell phones, I really don't have much occasion to look at smartphones.
I think you are way off on your estimates. As soon as you add a HDD to the device you have to make the battery thicker as well, you're going to want at least 5 hours out of it for music right? And video, 2 hrs maybe?
I'm just guessing based on removing the superfluous parts of each device. Even if you combine the battery volume, it wouldn't be too much thicker. You wouldn't need both main boards, both screens, the touch wheel isn't there and the case adds thickness too.
Plus, the new nano is very sweet. Tiny, skinny, and video too.
I think a lot of you guys will be very surprised at how well the iPod touch sells this holiday season.
Few are saying iTouch is selling poorly. It's just that the nano has a track record of being the top seller. Unfortunately, it's this human tendency to suggest that 2nd place is a horrible, worthless loser, and that tendency shows in the headline.
The iPod Touch was never a very wise move, but Apple does not always have a hit on its hands.
Just because it's not their biggest seller doesn't mean it's not a wise move. Otherwise they'd just drop every model but the top selling one, which would be stupid. There is a market for the touch, even if it's a smaller segment it rounds out the product line. Same as the "classic" has been for the last couple years (and continues to be). And don't forget, since the touch is basically a stripped down iPhone, most of the development has already been paid for by the original model.
As cool as the touch is, I'm still getting a nano this christmas.
So how are Zune2 sales coming along? They have a new batch of ads on TV...is anyone buying? Their hard drive model seems OK, but with the tiny screen the flash model seems like a big loser compared to nano.
I keep seeing the nano's success being attributed to its price; its not just that. The new nano's are one of the best put together products that Apple has ever produced. Where this item excels is when you slip it into your pants pocket and forget that its there (and know that it will survive).
One of the best products is the shuffle - hands down. Doesn't scratch easily. Apple should have made the back of the nano anodized like the front of it and the whole shuffle's body.
But Apple's wants you to buy another one after it gets all scratched up.
The person who wrote this expects us to be surprised that something that sells for $149 or $199 US is selling better than something that sells at $299 and $399? What a genius!
It's not all that obvious. You're not comparing identical products. The Touch has a very different feature set. By your logic (compare price, ignore features), the Shuffle, not the nano, should be their best seller.
I don't need or want a giant piece of electronic crap (no matter how awesome) cluttering up my pockets. Nor do I want a chunk of plastic and glass on my belt or in my shirt.
Hear hear! I carry a Palm m515 PDA. It is far too bulky to fit in a pocket. I have to wear it in a leather pouch on my belt. Before I got that pouch, I carried it in my pants pocket, until a minor accident (involving some children and soccer ball) shattered the screen - even though it was stored in a "protective" aluminum cover.
The iPhone/Touch's giant glass face has the exact same problem. Too big for a pocket, and too easy to break.
That was true for the 1st generation nano. I saw several of them scratched so badly you couldn't read the display. But that hasn't been the case for a long time. The second- and third-gen nanos have all-metal cases and more scratch-resistant displays. I've had my (second-gen) nano for a year and aside from some very minor wear on the back-side-printing, it looks the same as it did when it was new.
Apple should have made the back of the nano anodized like the front of it and the whole shuffle's body.
But Apple's wants you to buy another one after it gets all scratched up.
So, I assume you also object to the Classic and the Touch? They have the same polished-metal back that the current nano does.
One of the best products is the shuffle - hands down. Doesn't scratch easily. Apple should have made the back of the nano anodized like the front of it and the whole shuffle's body.
But Apple's wants you to buy another one after it gets all scratched up.
The new Nanos are made with the same anodized aluminium casing as the Shuffles.
The new Nanos are made with the same anodized aluminium casing as the Shuffles.
You're thinking of the second-gen model. On the current model, only the front is anodized aluminum. The back is the same polished metal surface that the Classic uses.
You're thinking of the second-gen model. On the current model, only the front is anodized aluminum. The back is the same polished metal surface that the Classic uses.
Ah, you are correct, Sir.
[Edit: I retract the below criticism after realizing that the sample size was larger than I thought. Sorry! (I still find the derived conclusions to be unfounded)]
This "analyst" report is what I would expect from a weekend project by a couple of highschool students.
In my opinion, AppleInsider should be embarrassed for publishing this report. It has zero credibility. There are plenty of rumors and news stories around such that it shouldn't be necessary to pad the site with such a low level of journalism.
Or at least a main point of the story should have been to point out that the analyst is basing their opinion on what amounts to a handful personal anecdotes. That's fine for forum participants. But when the info is depicted as coming from a factual source, we should expect better.
That's quite a clever spelling. Did you choose it because the correct spelling of analyst doesn't have "anal" in it like your version does?.....
....except that it does?
analyst.......
....except that it does?
analyst.......
You missed the joke