I do and i can tell you it doesn't record poor quality video. It doesn't record as good as my Canon XM1 but then again there's about a £1,700 differential in price.
The Canon is pretty much redundant these days. Downscaling video from the XM1 for the web was becoming a pain in the A**e.
How the video quality compare to an iPhone's? I would never expect to compare it to a Canon's.
thank you for the link. The video looks great on it but I've yet to see one blown up. As to it being a super product I think that may be extending it a bit. You can't edit nor send directly to youtube. And it uncomfortable to operate (Yes I played with one last Thursday). However, as a listening device the Nano is great according to iLounge.
"Yet in the mobile device war heating up between the iPod touch and the Zune HD"
OK, I'll bite. This is the sillies,t least informed advertisement, er, story, I've read this month. You really should try harder at disguising the MS handouts.
If the Zune marketplace could be used on a Mac, I'd be all for buying the Zune HD. For the features and the price, I think it outclasses the iPod Touch. I'm a user who focuses almost exclusively on having music, podcasts, video podcasts, and movies in my pocket, so the web-browsing, apps, and anything else the iPod touch does doesn't appeal to me. For what does appeal to me, the Zune HD will do better I believe.
However, I don't feel like booting into windows on my Mac just to be able to use the device, and so I'll just be sticking to the iPod I've got I suppose.
Try to count the games there. I had hard time to find a row will less than 3 games in it. To put this in perspective:
There are 7 items in a row
There are 20 categories total, games is one of them. If the apps were distributed equaly across those categories the proportion would suggest 1 game in 20 items there.
There are 200 items in each list, equal distribution would make 10 games on each page total.
thank you for the link. The video looks great on it but I've yet to see one blown up. As to it being a super product I think that may be extending it a bit. You can't edit nor send directly to youtube. And it uncomfortable to operate (Yes I played with one last Thursday). However, as a listening device the Nano is great according to iLounge.
Like he said, it's easy to get used to, though I would have preferred if Apple could have managed to put on the other end. I suppose there was no way right now.
UTube has some already. I'm also seeing some on Apple's site and some other sites.
This is 640 x 480, and it does look pretty good.
But like the Flips, IQ will suffer in dimmer light.
This isn't meant for a major video IQ experience, but what it does, it does well.
If the Zune marketplace could be used on a Mac, I'd be all for buying the Zune HD. For the features and the price, I think it outclasses the iPod Touch. I'm a user who focuses almost exclusively on having music, podcasts, video podcasts, and movies in my pocket, so the web-browsing, apps, and anything else the iPod touch does doesn't appeal to me. For what does appeal to me, the Zune HD will do better I believe.
However, I don't feel like booting into windows on my Mac just to be able to use the device, and so I'll just be sticking to the iPod I've got I suppose.
They obviously don't feel as though there are enough Mac users to make a difference, and likely feel as though most Mac users wouldn't buy one anyway, and they're probably right on both counts.
Also, MS products use MS DRM, and I'm not sure it can run on a Mac?Apple's choice.
No my problem is that the article is even implying that he's spinning (read lying) based on the fact that there is a blank space where a camera was supposed to go and was probably pulled.
Logic holds and has been discussed many a time here is that the Touch is so popular because of its wireless internet capabilties (mail, Safari) and apps rather than its gaming. It's basically the iPhone without AT&T. I suppose we would only really know if Apple released percentage of games sold at the App store and that percentage of Touch buyers.
Peace.
No. You are wrong Teckstud. An iPhone without AT&T is still a phone. At the minimum, the touch is an iPhone WITHOUT the phone module. Huge difference when it comes to a true wireless device. An iPhone is a wireless device. A touch is a WiFi device which still greatly limits what a user can do sans a phone-data connection.
Who are you to say what most users should view the touch as? So the touch has a void for a (future) camera? As usual, most users probably will not care at the least. It didn't seem to matter for the millions of touch users right now. This is a classic case of evolution. The touch was originally marketed as a multimedia WiFi device. It still is. However it happened, users now started labeling it more of a gaming platform with media capabilities. In your twisted world, nothing should ever change for fear your house of cards will collapse.
You had prior posts (pre iPhone) raving about your touch. It didn't have a camera yet you seemed perfectly happy with it! Suddenly now it's unacceptable?
When the time comes that they put a camera in... great. The villagers will rejoice. However you are reading WAY too into it and fabricating some kind of conspiracy theory. Honestly teckstud. Get over yourself. The world DOES NOT revolve around you. What, are you going to tell the millions of consumers that purchase this new touch that they are all a bunch of stupid, ill-informed idiots simply because they don't agree with you? *sheesh*
So I just had to comment on the article opening - the comment of the ..."mobile device war heating up between the iPod [T]ouch and Zune HD..." it's just not at that level yet. And there's a big difference between what the Mac OS has been battling against and what the portrayed underdog the "Zune" has to battle against. But in both cases there's something that's the same. Apple marketed the first consumer GUI and Microsoft essentially copied it; Apple successfully developed the iPod, and subsequently the iPod Touch, and Microsoft is trying to copy that. There has been so much of the design of the iPod incorporated into the Zune products (way beyond what other MP3 players have been producing) that it's laughable.
I know there are lurkers here and they start up the trolling right away, but they just ignore what an industry recognizes as true. And no, it's not just about Apple, it's Sony, Google, AIM/Yahoo, and it all follows the single mindset that's driven M$ from day one - They big blue as the recognized leader of not only the PC, but of computers in general, and M$ believes that a technology will come along and displace them. So what M$ does instead of working and developing or even truly innovating and improving an existing technology, they try to get into everything just incase that's the tech that displaces them. The result is often drive off better products, producing mediocre products, and if possible dominating a particular market. Which I really won't even have a problem with if M$ actually continued to develop and improve a product, but we know what they do, I give you IE, which M$ essentially stopped developing completely when Netscape was finally bet down. What's even more pathetic is that for a company that has this watch-the-market-so-we-don't-get-left-behind mentality, it took them years to finally recognize and then react to the emergence of other web browsers mainly Firefox (ah, netscape, you lost the battle but the war wages on).
So is Apple the new M$ when it comes to iPod - not even close, to improve and innovate has been in Apple's blood from the beginning. They don't just jump into a market because someone else is making money at it, they reinvent, which was the case with the iPod, the cell phone industry was stagnant until the iPhone, and the netbook blitz currently going on, well, that's to be seen. But the thing that really stands out through the history of both companies, if you're willing to see it, is that the manner in which each of these companies develop and market products - they are completely different regardless of which is leading which in a particular area.
The touch started out popular because of the internet capabilities but as Jobs so adequately put ""What customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine," The key word there is "started." He isn't saying that ever since it started people were like OMGWTFBBQ those games are freakin' awesome. He's saying that people have STARTED to view it as a game machine so they made a bunch of commercials showing off the games and, true to Jobs' comment, the sales took off despite the shite economy. Could they have put a camera in there and charged the same amount and made almost the same? Probably but they would have had to redo the back case and create different shells for the 8GB and the 16/32GB and as we've seen with the iPhone they don't like doing that.
I've got a number of friends who have Touches and not a single one of them bought it for the wireless internet capability. They bought it for the 3rd party apps (read: games) and the music.
When the touch didn't have sh!t for 3rd party games of course people saw the internet as a huge draw because that's all it had but now that games are getting to the point of kickassery they see it as a portable gaming device and rightfully so.
There was some research done that showed that Touch users downloaded something like 2-3 times as many apps as the iPhone and considering the raw % of apps that are games I'd say touch users download a sh!tload of games.
I think what Apple has somewhat realized here is that the Nano & the iPod Touch are for 2 different markets & 2 different groups are being targeted.
The Nano is targeted towards kids who's parents won't get them either an iPhone or iPod Touch or kids who don't care about either of those devices. Cost is probably part of why parents won't put out for these devices but a lot of it I think relates more to what kids are able to access through both.
The iPod Touch has a large following among mobile gamers & has long been compared to a PSP or NintendoDS. I wouldn't be shocked at all if cost was the big decision to hold on a camera, considering that most people that care about those features on the go are more likely to get an iPhone rather than an iPod Touch. Apple is simply taking a gamble that they can beat out more sales from these things if they simply lower the price & up the performance.
If software developers follow with lots of new great titles then they are likely to claim success, a lesson that Nintendo learned years ago when it took on the Sega Genesis.
As far as wireless goes, it is an appealing feature for the gamers because of possibility for multiplayer & not so much for web browsing.
I suspect that the camera will come for the Touch, just probably closer to the Christmas season. It will likely come with an additional cost in price, something that is less likely to be a show stopper when people are buying gifts than when they buy for themselves.
I would note as well that there are a lot of people who have both an iPod Touch & an iPod Nano. These people primarily carry around the iPod Nano when on the go because they just want a really small music player for on the go & don't care about hauling around the iPod Touch just to play some games or surf the web.
The OLED screen is awesome. In fact I remember well my first iPhone review on the forums here way back when. I distinctly remember mentioning the LCD screen as its weak point. The next touch and iPhone will get OLED displays and the Prince won't know where to turn.
yes he will. when ipod was all white and the rest were black, they all pointed middle finger at the black. when ipod became black, same ppl praised black as an apple invention. just one example, but i'm sure there are many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
BTW- when the Touch does get its camera- what will the new reason be for it's inclusion into a gaming device?
"people started to tell us they also want to see the touch as a camera."
I don't know- I've seen a lot of posts here and elsewhere where many are very disappointed that the Touch didn't get a camera. I haven't read any where someone's stating "OMGLWTF its the gaming device I've always wanted and more (finger stuck in cheek)!"
BTW- when the Touch does get its camera- what will the new reason be for it's inclusion into a gaming device?
I don't think it has to be such an extreme. I bought my 1st Gen iPod Touch and all I was expecting was an iPod (music & video features), a web browser for the couch/bed, and a way to read books.
I have found that now I spend more than half of my iPod touch time playing games, casual games. I don't use it for browsing as much because websites are forcing me into mobile web pages when the iPod has a browser that allows me to view the entire site (This is my #1 pet peeve) (Don't say "Flash", I don't have it installed on any of my Macs). Steve Jobs hit the nail on the head with his comments IMHO.
Apple's inclusion of the "Top Grossing" apps is very, very interesting, isn't it? They are basically trying to encourage people to raise the prices on their apps using peer pressure. Quite ingenious really. It's kind of like what has happened with movies... everyone is concerned about the gross, less concerned if it's worth watching.
Why do you believe everything that man tells you? You show me the link to the research survey's answers. Any real gamer will tell you that statement's BS. The article even tells you that that camera was supposed to happen and didn't. If that's not a made up excuse - then what is? If it's such a great gaming device why doesn't Apple make a companion joystick? Go back to your kool-aid drip.
Having both PSP and iPhone, I agree with you completely.
While iPhone games are great while waiting for my wife in front of Just Jeans Outlet (there is no way I'm going in there!), that's pretty much it is - a short distraction/time killer. But it just can't match fully blown titles like God Of War, Burnout... and it can't match numerous hardware controls. It. Just. Can't.
If users see iPod/iPhone as gaming device, that just means Apple users are desperate for native gaming on Apple products (and option to get rid of Windows for good), but there is still too much to be desired on that front.
Me, I'd like to have iPhone with some kind of cradle with hardware controls, and deeper games to accompany such device. I'd like to get rid of PSP and have one device as my whole mobile entertainment, but with what exists right now for iPhone, not going to happen.
Try to count the games there. I had hard time to find a row will less than 3 games in it. To put this in perspective:
There are 7 items in a row
There are 20 categories total, games is one of them. If the apps were distributed equaly across those categories the proportion would suggest 1 game in 20 items there.
There are 200 items in each list, equal distribution would make 10 games on each page total.
i counted.. 30 of the top 50 apps listed were games. that is 60% with a whole lotta categories of apps competing.. now imagine the number of hours spent on the touch... and how many of the hours are games.. I wonder? My bet is that it is well over 60% of the time.. and with music playing at the same time as game playing.. well.. it is significantly a game machine and ipod for sure..
IMO it's not a fair fight. MS makes the crappy Zune while Apple makes the 78.3% of the MP3 market and Zune comes in at 1.1%. That's one person out of ten buys a POS Zune. I mean come on MS as always didn't think the product through enough to make it even a contender. To sum it up, my nephew bought one of the first generation Zune's and he hared it, the navigation is what you would expect from MS, unintuitive , scatterbrained and just plain confusing. But thats what MS puts out. In it's 1% market share MP3 player and it's virus ridden, spyware touched, unintuitive operating system. Watch how Apple takes back it's number one standing in computer sales and market share. I give it less than 5 years and Apple will hold around 80% and the last few idiots who use MS products will do so out of just plain ignorance that there is anything better, stable, virus free and just plain workable and intuitive.
Zune will never go beyond 2 percent. It will waiver between 1 and 2 percent. I wouldn't be surprised if they, (MS) started giving them away free so they can say they have a bigger part of the pie.
Comments
That records poor quality video and is competing againt the cheap Flip which SJ even mentioned.
No MS Luddie here- just a realist.
I see your point though- if I can put on your magic hat and pretend it's free.
The video is really pretty good. You should go and take a look.
Most people will use this for UTube and similar functions. It's better than needed for that.
If you want really good video, go and buy a real video camera, with a good zoom lens and the fixings.
Otherwise, this is a super product, and is a game changer.
Tim, as usual, is spot on.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352765,00.asp
Do you actually own one of these?
I do and i can tell you it doesn't record poor quality video. It doesn't record as good as my Canon XM1 but then again there's about a £1,700 differential in price.
The Canon is pretty much redundant these days. Downscaling video from the XM1 for the web was becoming a pain in the A**e.
How the video quality compare to an iPhone's? I would never expect to compare it to a Canon's.
The video is really pretty good. You should go and take a look.
Most people will use this for UTube and similar functions. It's better than needed for that.
If you want really good video, go and buy a real video camera, with a good zoom lens and the fixings.
Otherwise, this is a super product, and is a game changer.
Tim, as usual, is spot on.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352765,00.asp
thank you for the link. The video looks great on it but I've yet to see one blown up. As to it being a super product I think that may be extending it a bit. You can't edit nor send directly to youtube. And it uncomfortable to operate (Yes I played with one last Thursday). However, as a listening device the Nano is great according to iLounge.
OK, I'll bite. This is the sillies,t least informed advertisement, er, story, I've read this month. You really should try harder at disguising the MS handouts.
ed
However, I don't feel like booting into windows on my Mac just to be able to use the device, and so I'll just be sticking to the iPod I've got I suppose.
iTunes Top Grossing section
Top paid apps
Top free apps
Try to count the games there. I had hard time to find a row will less than 3 games in it. To put this in perspective:
- There are 7 items in a row
- There are 20 categories total, games is one of them. If the apps were distributed equaly across those categories the proportion would suggest 1 game in 20 items there.
- There are 200 items in each list, equal distribution would make 10 games on each page total.
A couple of other links/statistics:Here
and here
Waiting for the Zune to catch up ...
thank you for the link. The video looks great on it but I've yet to see one blown up. As to it being a super product I think that may be extending it a bit. You can't edit nor send directly to youtube. And it uncomfortable to operate (Yes I played with one last Thursday). However, as a listening device the Nano is great according to iLounge.
Like he said, it's easy to get used to, though I would have preferred if Apple could have managed to put on the other end. I suppose there was no way right now.
UTube has some already. I'm also seeing some on Apple's site and some other sites.
This is 640 x 480, and it does look pretty good.
But like the Flips, IQ will suffer in dimmer light.
This isn't meant for a major video IQ experience, but what it does, it does well.
Kids who buy Nano's will just freak out at this.
If the Zune marketplace could be used on a Mac, I'd be all for buying the Zune HD. For the features and the price, I think it outclasses the iPod Touch. I'm a user who focuses almost exclusively on having music, podcasts, video podcasts, and movies in my pocket, so the web-browsing, apps, and anything else the iPod touch does doesn't appeal to me. For what does appeal to me, the Zune HD will do better I believe.
However, I don't feel like booting into windows on my Mac just to be able to use the device, and so I'll just be sticking to the iPod I've got I suppose.
They obviously don't feel as though there are enough Mac users to make a difference, and likely feel as though most Mac users wouldn't buy one anyway, and they're probably right on both counts.
Also, MS products use MS DRM, and I'm not sure it can run on a Mac?Apple's choice.
No my problem is that the article is even implying that he's spinning (read lying) based on the fact that there is a blank space where a camera was supposed to go and was probably pulled.
Logic holds and has been discussed many a time here is that the Touch is so popular because of its wireless internet capabilties (mail, Safari) and apps rather than its gaming. It's basically the iPhone without AT&T. I suppose we would only really know if Apple released percentage of games sold at the App store and that percentage of Touch buyers.
Peace.
No. You are wrong Teckstud. An iPhone without AT&T is still a phone. At the minimum, the touch is an iPhone WITHOUT the phone module. Huge difference when it comes to a true wireless device. An iPhone is a wireless device. A touch is a WiFi device which still greatly limits what a user can do sans a phone-data connection.
Who are you to say what most users should view the touch as? So the touch has a void for a (future) camera? As usual, most users probably will not care at the least. It didn't seem to matter for the millions of touch users right now. This is a classic case of evolution. The touch was originally marketed as a multimedia WiFi device. It still is. However it happened, users now started labeling it more of a gaming platform with media capabilities. In your twisted world, nothing should ever change for fear your house of cards will collapse.
You had prior posts (pre iPhone) raving about your touch. It didn't have a camera yet you seemed perfectly happy with it! Suddenly now it's unacceptable?
When the time comes that they put a camera in... great. The villagers will rejoice. However you are reading WAY too into it and fabricating some kind of conspiracy theory. Honestly teckstud. Get over yourself. The world DOES NOT revolve around you. What, are you going to tell the millions of consumers that purchase this new touch that they are all a bunch of stupid, ill-informed idiots simply because they don't agree with you? *sheesh*
I know there are lurkers here and they start up the trolling right away, but they just ignore what an industry recognizes as true. And no, it's not just about Apple, it's Sony, Google, AIM/Yahoo, and it all follows the single mindset that's driven M$ from day one - They big blue as the recognized leader of not only the PC, but of computers in general, and M$ believes that a technology will come along and displace them. So what M$ does instead of working and developing or even truly innovating and improving an existing technology, they try to get into everything just incase that's the tech that displaces them. The result is often drive off better products, producing mediocre products, and if possible dominating a particular market. Which I really won't even have a problem with if M$ actually continued to develop and improve a product, but we know what they do, I give you IE, which M$ essentially stopped developing completely when Netscape was finally bet down. What's even more pathetic is that for a company that has this watch-the-market-so-we-don't-get-left-behind mentality, it took them years to finally recognize and then react to the emergence of other web browsers mainly Firefox (ah, netscape, you lost the battle but the war wages on).
So is Apple the new M$ when it comes to iPod - not even close, to improve and innovate has been in Apple's blood from the beginning. They don't just jump into a market because someone else is making money at it, they reinvent, which was the case with the iPod, the cell phone industry was stagnant until the iPhone, and the netbook blitz currently going on, well, that's to be seen. But the thing that really stands out through the history of both companies, if you're willing to see it, is that the manner in which each of these companies develop and market products - they are completely different regardless of which is leading which in a particular area.
The touch started out popular because of the internet capabilities but as Jobs so adequately put ""What customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine," The key word there is "started." He isn't saying that ever since it started people were like OMGWTFBBQ those games are freakin' awesome. He's saying that people have STARTED to view it as a game machine so they made a bunch of commercials showing off the games and, true to Jobs' comment, the sales took off despite the shite economy. Could they have put a camera in there and charged the same amount and made almost the same? Probably but they would have had to redo the back case and create different shells for the 8GB and the 16/32GB and as we've seen with the iPhone they don't like doing that.
I've got a number of friends who have Touches and not a single one of them bought it for the wireless internet capability. They bought it for the 3rd party apps (read: games) and the music.
When the touch didn't have sh!t for 3rd party games of course people saw the internet as a huge draw because that's all it had but now that games are getting to the point of kickassery they see it as a portable gaming device and rightfully so.
There was some research done that showed that Touch users downloaded something like 2-3 times as many apps as the iPhone and considering the raw % of apps that are games I'd say touch users download a sh!tload of games.
I think what Apple has somewhat realized here is that the Nano & the iPod Touch are for 2 different markets & 2 different groups are being targeted.
The Nano is targeted towards kids who's parents won't get them either an iPhone or iPod Touch or kids who don't care about either of those devices. Cost is probably part of why parents won't put out for these devices but a lot of it I think relates more to what kids are able to access through both.
The iPod Touch has a large following among mobile gamers & has long been compared to a PSP or NintendoDS. I wouldn't be shocked at all if cost was the big decision to hold on a camera, considering that most people that care about those features on the go are more likely to get an iPhone rather than an iPod Touch. Apple is simply taking a gamble that they can beat out more sales from these things if they simply lower the price & up the performance.
If software developers follow with lots of new great titles then they are likely to claim success, a lesson that Nintendo learned years ago when it took on the Sega Genesis.
As far as wireless goes, it is an appealing feature for the gamers because of possibility for multiplayer & not so much for web browsing.
I suspect that the camera will come for the Touch, just probably closer to the Christmas season. It will likely come with an additional cost in price, something that is less likely to be a show stopper when people are buying gifts than when they buy for themselves.
I would note as well that there are a lot of people who have both an iPod Touch & an iPod Nano. These people primarily carry around the iPod Nano when on the go because they just want a really small music player for on the go & don't care about hauling around the iPod Touch just to play some games or surf the web.
The OLED screen is awesome. In fact I remember well my first iPhone review on the forums here way back when. I distinctly remember mentioning the LCD screen as its weak point. The next touch and iPhone will get OLED displays and the Prince won't know where to turn.
yes he will. when ipod was all white and the rest were black, they all pointed middle finger at the black. when ipod became black, same ppl praised black as an apple invention. just one example, but i'm sure there are many.
BTW- when the Touch does get its camera- what will the new reason be for it's inclusion into a gaming device?
"people started to tell us they also want to see the touch as a camera."
I don't know- I've seen a lot of posts here and elsewhere where many are very disappointed that the Touch didn't get a camera. I haven't read any where someone's stating "OMGLWTF its the gaming device I've always wanted and more (finger stuck in cheek)!"
BTW- when the Touch does get its camera- what will the new reason be for it's inclusion into a gaming device?
I don't think it has to be such an extreme. I bought my 1st Gen iPod Touch and all I was expecting was an iPod (music & video features), a web browser for the couch/bed, and a way to read books.
I have found that now I spend more than half of my iPod touch time playing games, casual games. I don't use it for browsing as much because websites are forcing me into mobile web pages when the iPod has a browser that allows me to view the entire site (This is my #1 pet peeve) (Don't say "Flash", I don't have it installed on any of my Macs). Steve Jobs hit the nail on the head with his comments IMHO.
For those questioning the games success on the iPhone/iPod touch - check this out:
iTunes Top Grossing section
Apple's inclusion of the "Top Grossing" apps is very, very interesting, isn't it? They are basically trying to encourage people to raise the prices on their apps using peer pressure. Quite ingenious really. It's kind of like what has happened with movies... everyone is concerned about the gross, less concerned if it's worth watching.
Why do you believe everything that man tells you? You show me the link to the research survey's answers. Any real gamer will tell you that statement's BS. The article even tells you that that camera was supposed to happen and didn't. If that's not a made up excuse - then what is? If it's such a great gaming device why doesn't Apple make a companion joystick? Go back to your kool-aid drip.
Having both PSP and iPhone, I agree with you completely.
While iPhone games are great while waiting for my wife in front of Just Jeans Outlet (there is no way I'm going in there!), that's pretty much it is - a short distraction/time killer. But it just can't match fully blown titles like God Of War, Burnout... and it can't match numerous hardware controls. It. Just. Can't.
If users see iPod/iPhone as gaming device, that just means Apple users are desperate for native gaming on Apple products (and option to get rid of Windows for good), but there is still too much to be desired on that front.
Me, I'd like to have iPhone with some kind of cradle with hardware controls, and deeper games to accompany such device. I'd like to get rid of PSP and have one device as my whole mobile entertainment, but with what exists right now for iPhone, not going to happen.
For those questioning the games success on the iPhone/iPod touch - check this out:
iTunes Top Grossing section
Top paid apps
Top free apps
Try to count the games there. I had hard time to find a row will less than 3 games in it. To put this in perspective:
- There are 7 items in a row
- There are 20 categories total, games is one of them. If the apps were distributed equaly across those categories the proportion would suggest 1 game in 20 items there.
- There are 200 items in each list, equal distribution would make 10 games on each page total.
A couple of other links/statistics:Here
and here
Waiting for the Zune to catch up ...
i counted.. 30 of the top 50 apps listed were games. that is 60% with a whole lotta categories of apps competing.. now imagine the number of hours spent on the touch... and how many of the hours are games.. I wonder? My bet is that it is well over 60% of the time.. and with music playing at the same time as game playing.. well.. it is significantly a game machine and ipod for sure..
Is the Zune HD being subsidized by the ridiculously high prices for Windows 7?
Is the iPod Touch being subsidized by the ridiculously high prices for a computer with an Apple on it?
Is the Zune HD being subsidized by the ridiculously high prices for Windows 7?
asinine
Is the iPod Touch being subsidized by the ridiculously high prices for a computer with an Apple on it?
asinine for responding.
Zune will never go beyond 2 percent. It will waiver between 1 and 2 percent. I wouldn't be surprised if they, (MS) started giving them away free so they can say they have a bigger part of the pie.