and for Apple to enable the full functionality of the bluetooth chip (both iPhone and Touch have the same 2.1 chip)
Are they really the same chip? I thought the one in the Touch was a modified/crippled version for the Nike features.
Man, full Bluetooth support would be great. I just picked up a pretty decent headset for a measly 13 euros. Combined with Fring, I'd no longer use my handheld phones.
If true, this is awesome. Downloading podcasts makes so much sense. Hell, some UK carriers even use the idea in their advertising when talking up unlimited data add-ons.
I listen to a few podcasts that can be out-of-date very quickly. By the time I've downloaded them on my MBP and synced, it's too late to listen to them. I've been using my N95 8GB to download podcasts but if I can use my iPod touch instead then great!
It is a software issue. Not hardware. Apple crippled the BT stack. That is why there is no A2DP, or OBEX, or any other reasonable "smartphone" feature.
BTW: direct downloadable podcasts are not new. Other phones have had them for years.
So I guess they shouldn't offer it because other phones have had it for years.
Are they really the same chip? I thought the one in the Touch was a modified/crippled version for the Nike features.
Man, full Bluetooth support would be great. I just picked up a pretty decent headset for a measly 13 euros. Combined with Fring, I'd no longer use my handheld phones.
Don't get to happy just yet. The app has to make use of the audio system. It is not allowed in the SDK you will still have to use the stock crappy Apple headphones.
So I guess they shouldn't offer it because other phones have had it for years.
I did not say this. I just state the fact that this once again Apple trying (or maybe I perceived it wrong) as passing off something basic and normal as new and innovative.
Give me wireless syncing and then I am impressed.
Apple will nickel and dime you with basic features all day long because there are some that will actually think this is new and improved.
I did not say this. I just state the fact that this once again Apple trying (or maybe I perceived it wrong) as passing off something basic and normal as new and innovative.
Give me wireless syncing and then I am impressed.
Apple will nickel and dime you with basic features all day long because there are some that will actually think this is new and improved.
Wireless syncing is where the real money is at.
Nickle and dime, they are adding new features and y'all still complain. In what way are theyvsaying this is innovative, they are just adding features but yet you still find acway to complain or you think they shouldn't add anything.
The iTouch doesn't have a telco contract and drives residuals to Apple like the iPhone.
That is not the reason. It has been explained many times, yet people still get it wrong.
It is NOT related to the iPhone service contracts, they form no part in the deferred revenue model that Apple is using for the iPhone.
The way it works is as follows :-
The money that Apple get for the iPhone when you buy it is not all realised as revenue at the time of the sale. Instead Apple take 1/24 of the sale price only each month as revenue, eventually taking the full revenue after 2 years. This was specifically done by Apple for the iPhone and Apple TV to enable them to legally and without charge offer regular updates for both devices without falling foul of the Sarbane-Oxley laws. As Apple only take part of the revenue each month from the sale of the device, they can then claim that any updates are covered in the revenue taken. It is called GAAP accounting and there are some very detailed explanation on this very web site on how it works.
This is NOT how they account for iPod touch sales, where 100% of the revenue is take at the time of the sale. Therefore any upgrades need to be paid for or Apple would break the Sawbane-Oxley law.
This is NOT how they account for iPod touch sales, where 100% of the revenue is take at the time of the sale. Therefore any upgrades need to be paid for or Apple would break the Sawbane-Oxley law.
What I don't understand is why the Apple TV upgrade was free whilst major iPod touch upgrades are not.
You could argue that the Apple TV gained the ability to download movies, thus generating Apple sustained income. However, a similar update for the iPod touch enabled the ability to download applications, thus also generating a sustained income for Apple. The iPod touch also has the ability to play movies and music from iTunes - another two sources of income.
I can only conclude that the iPod touch has a greater potential to generate future income for Apple than the Apple TV. And yet, the Apple TV update was free and the iPod touch major updates are not.
Comments
Street View will be great but then they'll have to update with the Car Navigator being developped by Google Japan
I watched the video and can't see any difference to the current Driving Directions with Street View in Australia (and I thought the rest of the world)
Me to. I don`t care about pointless eye candy like street maps and google earth and all the other stuff that keeps getting added.
Give us practical things like Push Services and Cut&Paste. Jesus, how hard can it be?
Dont care!
I Want!
Give it a rest. I want never gets! didn't ever your mother tell you that?
and for Apple to enable the full functionality of the bluetooth chip (both iPhone and Touch have the same 2.1 chip)
Are they really the same chip? I thought the one in the Touch was a modified/crippled version for the Nike features.
Man, full Bluetooth support would be great. I just picked up a pretty decent headset for a measly 13 euros. Combined with Fring, I'd no longer use my handheld phones.
Those are the apps I'm waiting for !
I listen to a few podcasts that can be out-of-date very quickly. By the time I've downloaded them on my MBP and synced, it's too late to listen to them. I've been using my N95 8GB to download podcasts but if I can use my iPod touch instead then great!
It is a software issue. Not hardware. Apple crippled the BT stack. That is why there is no A2DP, or OBEX, or any other reasonable "smartphone" feature.
BTW: direct downloadable podcasts are not new. Other phones have had them for years.
So I guess they shouldn't offer it because other phones have had it for years.
Are they really the same chip? I thought the one in the Touch was a modified/crippled version for the Nike features.
Man, full Bluetooth support would be great. I just picked up a pretty decent headset for a measly 13 euros. Combined with Fring, I'd no longer use my handheld phones.
Don't get to happy just yet. The app has to make use of the audio system. It is not allowed in the SDK you will still have to use the stock crappy Apple headphones.
So I guess they shouldn't offer it because other phones have had it for years.
I did not say this. I just state the fact that this once again Apple trying (or maybe I perceived it wrong) as passing off something basic and normal as new and innovative.
Give me wireless syncing and then I am impressed.
Apple will nickel and dime you with basic features all day long because there are some that will actually think this is new and improved.
Wireless syncing is where the real money is at.
I did not say this. I just state the fact that this once again Apple trying (or maybe I perceived it wrong) as passing off something basic and normal as new and innovative.
Give me wireless syncing and then I am impressed.
Apple will nickel and dime you with basic features all day long because there are some that will actually think this is new and improved.
Wireless syncing is where the real money is at.
Nickle and dime, they are adding new features and y'all still complain. In what way are theyvsaying this is innovative, they are just adding features but yet you still find acway to complain or you think they shouldn't add anything.
If not, I think that would be an interesting if not necessary option with direct downloads, if only for disk space management.
Will this update be free for iPod Touch?
Ten bucks....
I watched the video and can't see any difference to the current Driving Directions with Street View in Australia (and I thought the rest of the world)
I hope the driving directions don't really have you going the wrong way on a one way street.
The iTouch doesn't have a telco contract and drives residuals to Apple like the iPhone.
That is not the reason. It has been explained many times, yet people still get it wrong.
It is NOT related to the iPhone service contracts, they form no part in the deferred revenue model that Apple is using for the iPhone.
The way it works is as follows :-
The money that Apple get for the iPhone when you buy it is not all realised as revenue at the time of the sale. Instead Apple take 1/24 of the sale price only each month as revenue, eventually taking the full revenue after 2 years. This was specifically done by Apple for the iPhone and Apple TV to enable them to legally and without charge offer regular updates for both devices without falling foul of the Sarbane-Oxley laws. As Apple only take part of the revenue each month from the sale of the device, they can then claim that any updates are covered in the revenue taken. It is called GAAP accounting and there are some very detailed explanation on this very web site on how it works.
This is NOT how they account for iPod touch sales, where 100% of the revenue is take at the time of the sale. Therefore any upgrades need to be paid for or Apple would break the Sawbane-Oxley law.
The iTouch doesn't have a telco contract and drives residuals to Apple like the iPhone.
In addition to what Parky said which was spot on, I would add.
It is NOT true that all telco contracts drive residuals to Apple.
People think that model caused the Touch to have fees, and as Parky explained that's not true.
But also, up to date information on the iPhone contracting with 3G would discount the residual revenue model from many, but not all, of the telcos.
Way to go Apple. Crush the competition then release your app and force people to choose yours, because it's the only one available. HI-FIVE!!!!
You can always go to the android store to find a better solution..... not so much.
This is NOT how they account for iPod touch sales, where 100% of the revenue is take at the time of the sale. Therefore any upgrades need to be paid for or Apple would break the Sawbane-Oxley law.
What I don't understand is why the Apple TV upgrade was free whilst major iPod touch upgrades are not.
You could argue that the Apple TV gained the ability to download movies, thus generating Apple sustained income. However, a similar update for the iPod touch enabled the ability to download applications, thus also generating a sustained income for Apple. The iPod touch also has the ability to play movies and music from iTunes - another two sources of income.
I can only conclude that the iPod touch has a greater potential to generate future income for Apple than the Apple TV. And yet, the Apple TV update was free and the iPod touch major updates are not.
Can anyone explain?
You can always go to the android store to find a better solution..... not so much.