Apple's iPod Touch losing out to iPod Nano at checkout lines

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 92
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimhill View Post


    You know how Apple can make the iPod Touch attractive to me without relying on the price of flash memory?



    Put a hard drive in it. Yeah, I said a hard drive. I know I'm not the only person out there who wants the Touch interface mated to the capacity of the Classic. I am still savoring the taste of disappointment with the last product line overhaul, because I was betting on having exactly that: touch + scads of storage. Until the company offers that, I'm out of the market for iPods.



    I suspect Apple is trying to move away from hard drives in its players. For good reason if you ask me. Hard drives simply are not meant to be moved around. Between me and my girlfriend, I have had several hard drive based iPods fail because of the hard drive. The storage space is nice, but if you are actually an active person, you are gambling by buying a Classic iPod.
  • Reply 42 of 92
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Munster reported a few days ago that of the iPods sold during Black Friday (unofficially), 38% were nanos, 19% classics, and 19% touches. If that's even close, it shows that there's a market for each type, and I hope Apple keeps offering all three.



    For me, I have a new nano (for most travelling), and a classic. I'm not interested in the touch - I like the nano/classic interface just fine. Then again, I'm a dinosaur - I've never had a cell phone.
  • Reply 43 of 92
    I would in a heartbeat, without thinking, spend as much as it would need, for a iPod touch with 80GB+ space and a red Nano with 16GB flash for my gf. 8GB Nano isn't enough, i have at the moment some 12GB music, and while the Nano has now even video capabilities, 16GB is minimum!



    So Apple, is my money good enough?
  • Reply 44 of 92
    Two issues with this story:



    1. The iPod Touch was never meant to replace the Nano. In fact sales figures should compare the Touch and Classic sales instead.



    2. The actual figures posted reflect that the iPod Touch had significant sales. It was only outsold by the Nano in Best Buy.



    So really they are more like complementary products. The real deal is to figure out if the over all iPod sales and net revenues increased. That is the way to evaluate whether the Touch was a good decision.
  • Reply 45 of 92
    I purchased the Ipod Touch for most of the reasons stated before. I have a service contract with T-mobile. Unfortunately it doesn't expire until Oct 08. So right now I'm lumped into the "Not Yet" group of future Iphone owners. lol...I imagine that's where a lot of potential buyers are at right now.
  • Reply 46 of 92
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Not to mention that having a large touchscreen interface and a spinning HDD would require an even larger battery to maintain the same usage time. Now we have a much thicker device that weighs more because of the increase in storage and battery sizes. Not ideal.



    The touch is a lot thinner than the iPhone though.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PandarenLord View Post


    Have you ever tried to use the iPod touch? I have a 16 gb one, and I have to say, operating it with one hand is simple and extremely easy. In fact, the touch screen makes everything easier, not more difficult.



    That's probably true though I really like being able to control my ipod through my pocket. I don't even have to see the screen to skip, pause or resume.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MissKitty View Post


    But that would cannabilize Classic sales.



    I doubt it would do much. I think hard drive touches would cost more than Classics. I would still consider the 160GB model at $450. It's not that outlandish when the first 60GB photo was priced at over $600.
  • Reply 47 of 92
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ailol View Post


    This is non-news.



    An un-story.



    Nano has always outsold the more expensive iPods, since Nano was introduced. And Mini before that.



    Ding Ding Ding! You win the cash, the car, and the trip to Tahiti!
  • Reply 48 of 92
    Slow news day? More Macbooks purchased than iMacs?



    The numbers are what? One weekend?



    People must really need to justify the ad revenues at AppleInsider.com
  • Reply 49 of 92
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    The touch is a lot thinner than the iPhone though.







    That's probably true though I really like being able to control my ipod through my pocket. I don't even have to see the screen to skip, pause or resume.







    I doubt it would do much. I think hard drive touches would cost more than Classics. I would still consider the 160GB model at $450. It's not that outlandish when the first 60GB photo was priced at over $600.



    A 160 GB touch would be as thick as the first generation iPods!
  • Reply 50 of 92
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    A 160 GB touch would be as thick as the first generation iPods!



    I don't know how thick they are, but I'd think it would have to be maybe adding half the thickness of the Touch to the thickness of the Classic.
  • Reply 51 of 92
    The touch is completely worth the extra over a nano. The nano is a cute little machine (I have a silver 2G), but the touch blows it away. At the same time, the cost of an iPhone and the 18 month contract compared to a touch makes the touch look good again. I don't own a touch, but I want one, and I know what's possible with the touch system now (jailbreak) and by the time February comes, it will have that and more.



    So now, an honest question - At the Macworld show in January... what are the chances of a 32Gb iPod touch being released?
  • Reply 52 of 92
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ajprice View Post


    So now, an honest question - At the Macworld show in January... what are the chances of a 32Gb iPod touch being released?



    The only honest answer to your honest question is... nobody knows what the odds are.
  • Reply 53 of 92
    I'm trying to come up with a single thing in that iPod report that is mind-numbingly obvious, and failing. This is one of the most content-free analyst reports I've ever seen.



    As others have pointed out, the small pods have always been the best sellers. The Mini was the best seller, then the Nano, and it has remained that way. Total non-news.



    I've actually been surprised at how well the Touch seems to be selling. On Amazon the 16 GB model always comes in ahead of any of the Classics, though obviously behind the best Nano colors. Considering its limitations, it's pretty impressive.



    If Apple had a HDD-based unit, they would sell a zillion more. Count me in the group that considers exclusive use of flash to be a mistake. All arguments against HDD use are easily answered. Put in 1 GB of Flash for OS and other critical data, and save the HDD for media. Put in a bigger battery. Offer 30 GB and 80 GB models. Yes, it'd be a bit bigger and heavier, but somehow they're managing to sell a few iPhones despite this.



    The numbers I'll be interested to see are Zune 2 sales vs. iPod. Has Microsoft gained any significant ground?
  • Reply 54 of 92
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I don't know how thick they are, but I'd think it would have to be maybe adding half the thickness of the Touch to the thickness of the Classic.



    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?
  • Reply 55 of 92
    The nano has the right price, otherwise the touch is far superior. I'm sure many people that want the tocuh end up getting the iphone anyway, dontcha think?
  • Reply 56 of 92
    I bought the 16 GB touch when it came out. I sold my 30 GB 5th gen for $150 so the net price of the touch was only $250 to me - totally worth it. If I had to have forked over $400, I probably still would've done it, but it sure would have been more difficult.



    As for the capacity argument, yeah, who wouldn't like more capacity. But, the limited capacity has made me manage my library more efficiently.
  • Reply 57 of 92
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member
    I think the touch is cool but at $299 and $399, I don't even bother looking at it when I go into the Apple store. For that price, I am thinking Playstation 3 (yeah, it's more expensive but the whole family gets to enjoy). The $149 iPod nano is definitely the right price for gift giving.
  • Reply 58 of 92
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PandarenLord View Post


    Have you ever tried to use the iPod touch? I have a 16 gb one, and I have to say, operating it with one hand is simple and extremely easy. In fact, the touch screen makes everything easier, not more difficult.



    You must have really big hands if you can navigate the menus and select songs with one hand. I tried a few times and failed, almost dropping it in the attempt. You need one hand to hold the unit, and the other to flip/scroll through the interface.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PandarenLord View Post


    Some features that are either not on the Nano, or are much better:

    Calendar

    Contacts

    Wi-Fi web browsing

    Widescreen (huge screen) videos

    CoverFlow



    For me, being able to manage events and contacts easily on my iPod (which is the only electronic device I carry with me) is great. Besides, have you noticed the huge screen?



    I am aware of the differences. As I wrote, the only feature I really care about is web browsing. The rest are anemic compared to what I have in my Palm PDA.



    Oh, and FWIW, the current nanos support CoverFlow. Personally, I think it just slows down the entire UI. It seriously gets in the way when you're trying to scroll through a list of 400 albums.



    Huge screen? Yep. And that's a problem. My shirts don't have pockets big enough to hold it.
  • Reply 59 of 92
    It is really too bad that Apple chose to use a sub-standard screen for the iPod Touch. It has been well documented that the screen on the iPhone is much clearer than the Touch.



    If only the iPhone had more memory....which will happen soon.
  • Reply 60 of 92
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hillstones View Post


    It is really too bad that Apple chose to use a sub-standard screen for the iPod Touch. It has been well documented that the screen on the iPhone is much clearer than the Touch.



    If only the iPhone had more memory....which will happen soon.



    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.