iPod Overload Offers Up Hard Choices, No Clear Winning Device

froochThe Touch is pretty good, but 16GB is pathetic. The classic is nice, with 160GB of HD space. But neither of them have everything. Did Apple screw themselves by spreading the features people want across multiple devices rather than putting them all in one SuperDevice?[…] Thanks to frooch for providing this nice story on Digg.

What other users say about this:

Tanbo: Yeah what Apple did does make sense, they are catering to different consumers.
Personally, I don’t need 160GB for music and videos – stuff that is old and I don’t listen to or watch anymore, I just get rid of. I imagine that’s the way it really should be for most people, unless you’re a DJ.

pastrynak: Get a free Apple iPod Touch @ http://www.freeappleipodtouch.com/

srodolff: “Neither of them have everything.”
So, when do I get the iPod that plugs directly into the pleasure center of my brain?

akhomerun: stop arguing about how much space you need for your music. MP3 manufacturers like Apple already know what the vast majority of the market wants, and that storage capacity is usually 4-8GB. Digg is full of enthusists, and about half of the comments about storage space seem to say “I need more” and the other half say “8-16GB is fine”.

Well, considering Digg is probably made up of the most tech-saavy portion of the MP3 player market, you have to realize that the average person just doesn’t need that much space. The average person doesn’t play MP3s over 192kbps and the average person leaves the encoding settings to their default (128kbps AAC in iTunes).

The iPod Touch will be a huge success. The iPod classic will be around for a year or so and likely be discontinued when the iPod Touch comes in a 32GB variety. The iPod nano will continue to sell ridiculously, and the shuffle is still the same old niche product.

The only question is if people will lose interest in the iPhone. I mean, Apple cut the price on it, but the web browsing, wifi, and music/video is all in the Touch with more storage space than the iPhone. The only thing missing is the phone. I think I’d just rather have 2 devices. Apple needs to differentiate the iPod Touch and the iPhone to be successful at both.

I highly doubt, besides the iPod classic, that any of these products will be unsuccessful.

coolharshal: After some time I realised that most of the features of iPod touch will be not that useful as its still a pain to use public WiFi hotspots. So, No web-browsing using Safari, No You-Tube videos and No online music downloads. And yes, there is no inbuilt Radio. But still I’ll wait for couple of months for a refurbished piece to appear on Apple site.
check out : http://way.to/ritw

aimetti: I dont understand you people.

If harddrive space is a big factor to you stop crying and buy the damn classic 160gb. I have a 30 g ipod with only about 17 gig of my 55 gb of music. I dont listen to half of it. The iphone touch 16gb will be more than plenty. If it isnt for you dont buy it.

cnldelta: Well I got all my home videos (well just one or two but thats all I made) and some (soon to be all) of my photographs stored on my ipod 5g.

The iPod touch storage capacity is great for peeps who use an iPod for solely music (How many GBs of music is there on iTunes music store anyway?) but if you use the iPod to store personal data, there’s no better choice than the ipod classic when it comes to long term portability. Hmm that reminds me, I got a whole video cd of a wedding anniversary to back up to my ipod.

MonumentMan: I only buy flash based ipods. I’ve been waiting patiently to upgrade my current nano (1st gen, 4gb) and just don’t think that 8gb is enough of a pop to upgrade! Maybe I’ll buy a used 2nd generation at some point but honestly to upgrade the nano, the case, the accessories just isn’t worth it.

apple is trying to force consumers to accept a new market (video) which is honestly in that great of demand. I think that they lost their way instead of providing meaninful upgrades to the product lines they have offered up some questionable upgrades (Starbucks browsing/purchasing) and this product introduction is the first in memory where Apple seems very, very flawed.

I sold all my apple stock yesterday, and even though Apple may have a great run in the future, I made lots of money (and plan to buy a mac computer) but I think that in hte short term these iPods just won’t get the user base to upgrade from their current devices. More memory, smaller form factor = printing gold. Questionable features like video, touch, cover flow, etc = apple trying to fool the fanboy population.

The classic looks like an upgrade, and the BLACK is the clear winner in terms of looks over that silver flecked one. I never liked the looks of the 2nd gen nano and even feel that the iPhone looks kind of lame in person (although it is a beautifully designed phone adn I’d love to get a 2nd generation one if they can add more features and eys, MORE MEMORY)

I’ve got a huge music library . I need a flash player. I’m sure that my nano is going to break at some point and honestly I would probably not get an iPod.

sonycam: Why are people asking why Apple only has 16gb on the touch? They did it for the ‘CASUAL CONSUMER’, the person who doesn’t have 160gb worth of warez packratted on their computer. This *isnt* a multimedia storage device, it’s for people who want to watch the odd episode of a show or play their 5gb worth of music. They also catered for the pirate by offering a 160gb ipod. I don’t see why people are bitching so much when they’ve been offered a retardedly large hard drive. It’s really not a hard decision, if you want to back up your entire library onto a portable device, pick the classic. If you want to have a slim touch screen ipod, pick the touch.

I for one am very glad that the touch only has 16gb. I have 20gb of music, I only listen to 5gb on a week to week basis so I’m glad it’s nice and slim and suits my needs perfectly with 8gb.

samgab: I totally agree! I currently have the 5.5 gen 30GB, and it’s totally full, so I really want the 80GB to free up some more room for video.
If the iPod touch came in 80GB it would be a total no brainer. I don’t care what it cost, I’d buy it. But 16GB is just no-where near enough. I don’t want to be sifting through my library making playlists of what to take and what to leave behind. I just want to take the lot.
All I want is an 80GB iPod touch. Is that too much to ask? lol.
A device like the iPod touch, that has a large wide screen for viewing video is just ridiculous when limited to 16GB, considering how large video file sizes are.
So I’ll end up getting the new 80GB iPod “classic” (160 is way more than I need right now. 60-80GB is perfect for my needs)
But I’m disappointed. I think an opportunity has been lost: The opportunity to create the killer iPod. I know that they used flash for several reasons, space and the desire to maintain the 8mm form factor being not the least of them, but still.
Rant over.

sargentr: one thing i see wrong with the touch is the lack of a physical pause and volume buttons. i don’t see why they didn’t use the same volume controls as the iphone, as well as making the home button pause music regardless of the screen being locked, if you need to quickly pause something your either gonna be ripping your headphones off or fumbling with the screen lock after pulling it out of your pocket. and whats with the super scratch silver backing? i thought apple learned with the iphone and every other ipod in the lineup, but apparently not. im still going to get one but its disappointing to see a few easy to spot problems, and no intergrated gmaps, thats a shame.

siliconglen: Keyboardless browser? Mass market portable consumer device? Personalised news even? Read about it from April 1990. http://www.siliconglen.com/pagelink/

djfist: Why is everyone defending apple only putting 16gb in the Touch??? This is clearly a step backwards! I have been waiting all year for them to announce an iPod with the same touchscreen technology as the iPhone. Then they go and announce the touch models with 8GB and 16GB. When I first saw the specs I thought it was a typo. 16GB? You’re supposed to put video on these things as well?. I can’t even begin to express my disapointment with apple. This is like Ford announcing that the ’09 Mustang has twice the features and technology of the ’08 model yet it won’t travel any faster than 70mph. Well you don’t NEED to go any faster than 70mph right? My 5th Gen Video has 80 GB. I currently have 55 of it filled. Do I listen to all of it all the time? Hell no, But I have something called choices. I can go back and listen to Led Zeppelin II if I get a hankering for it out of the blue. That’s the whole point. Carrying your music collection in your pocket! No, you don’t NEED 160GB. You don’t need an iPod at all. Carry that bulky discman around you had in the 90’s if you only want a handful of music. If the technology is not there to allow the touch to have larger storage then just say that. This whole “you don’t need that much space” defense is just rubbish. Technology is supposed to move forwards, not backwards.

Nexus85: For me iPod Touch has way too little space, and I don’t really see the target of this product. I would think that most people would prefer having the phone functions instead of the 8GB extra, and then rather have the classic iPod with much more HD space to take on long trips.

simd: The European Union really needs to investigate why Apple is charging $400 in the UK for a device which is $299 in the US.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: