Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New iPod touch

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: New iPod touch

#41

Post by galago »

mythz wrote: post #20

Sweet glad to finally see iPod Touch getting some modern love, just wished they came with bigger screens. Does Android have a comparable device? i.e. Internet/Music sans-phone in your pocket that's great at capturing quality vids/pics? Edit: The Samsung Galaxy Camera 2 looks close: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-camera-2

I remember looking for a Touch-style Android device a few years ago, and they kind-of existed then. They don't exist now. I think the big reason is that there's nothing like iTunes in the Android universe where you can have a robust desktop app with your own audio files. The non-networked style still has a place for runners, which is why its so nice to have the M8 in the Touch.

Re: New iPod touch

#42

Post by mynameisvlad »

croon wrote: post #29
mythz wrote: post #20

Sweet glad to finally see iPod Touch getting some modern love, just wished they came with bigger screens. Does Android have a comparable device? i.e. Internet/Music sans-phone in your pocket that's great at capturing quality vids/pics? Edit: The Samsung Galaxy Camera 2 looks close: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-camera-2

I'm not meaning to sound like a jerk, but comparable Android devices would be actual phones, with sd card slots. Pick one with a camera you like, turn off data/phone, and you can get whatever storage you want for a pittance.

Alright, then do you have examples? Because I don't believe there are many that would be decently powered (comparable to A8), with SD card slots at that price point.

Re: New iPod touch

#43

Post by andyjohnson0 »

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #37
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #19

Interesting that the landing page describes colours, screen resolution, even the CPU architecture and speed - but not the storage capacity. I have >100GB of music on on old iPod Classic and capacity is the most important factor for me.

I think with the current climate of everything being streamed, CPU and speed are a lot more important than available storage. This is especially true for the large mobile gaming market, where it's a lot more likely that a parent will buy an iTouch for $199 for their kids to play with vs getting them an iPhone (which wasn't realistic before the refresh due to hardware limitations) It will be interesting if this refres…

I prefer to "own" my music rather than streaming it, and I'm aware that I'm not really in the target audience for this device.

Re: New iPod touch

#44

Post by galago »

djcollier wrote: post #6

Is there even still a market for such devices? While $200 dollars may be a lot less than an unlocked iPhone, its certainly not cheap. Plus you can get an iPhone 6 at that price if you are willing to get into a contract.

The amount of engineering to create such a device is probably minimal, even if the existing market is small. I know people with Android phones who still use an iPod--partly because they have eclectic music tastes. They do to use streaming audio services, but its not the only way they consume music.

Re: New iPod touch

#45

Post by mynameisvlad »

glhaynes wrote: post #26
cgriswald wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it has the same design aesthetic as the iPad Air. The sides are rounded in a "quarter pipe" versus the "half pipe" completely rounded edges of the 6/6+.

This is interesting. I wonder how that decision was made.

Because it's the same design it's basically always had? Apple is far more conservative with iPod Touch redesigns than iPhone. It's generally just updating the back and colors slightly to match it with current aesthetics.

Re: New iPod touch

#46

Post by marbletiles »

gambiting wrote: post #12

It's weird that they are stuck to the 4" screen size with the iPod Touch. I fully expected them to make one the size of iPhone 6, like every previous iPod Touch.

The problem with the iPod Touch is that it highlights exactly how hefty the margin is on an iPhone.

64gb iPod = £249. 64gb iPhone 6 = £619.

If the only difference was GPS/Cell and a slightly larger battery it would hard to defend charging £370 for that.

Re: New iPod touch

#47

Post by mynameisvlad »

sizzzzlerz wrote: post #33
Phogo wrote: post #18

I want 160gb classic back!

I totally agree. Mine is still going after 5 years of use so I'm expecting to have to replace it any time now. The 128G option is acceptable but, since I'm touching that now, I'll have to thin my library a bit. Still, its better than the 64G and smaller.

Do you truly need your entire library on your device at any one time? 160GB of songs is roughly 111 days of continuous listening (assuming ~1MB/min, but I do admit that number goes up with higher bitrate content). Nobody truly needs that much music at any one time.

Re: New iPod touch

#48

Post by gambiting »

stephen-mw wrote: post #39
gambiting wrote: post #12

It's weird that they are stuck to the 4" screen size with the iPod Touch. I fully expected them to make one the size of iPhone 6, like every previous iPod Touch.

Some of us prefer this screen size. I'm actually holding off until the 6s to see if they launch a model with a small screen.

Oh absolutely, I can see that people still prefer that screen size, I'm just surprised that Apple decided not to go with a larger size on the iPod Touch.

Re: New iPod touch

#49

Post by adrusi »

mythz wrote: post #20

Sweet glad to finally see iPod Touch getting some modern love, just wished they came with bigger screens. Does Android have a comparable device? i.e. Internet/Music sans-phone in your pocket that's great at capturing quality vids/pics? Edit: The Samsung Galaxy Camera 2 looks close: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-camera-2

I'm sure the Android ecosystem has many equivalents, but they'll never be very high profile. The cellular hardware inside phones doesn't add too much to the cost, so customers are better off just buying a phone and not putting in a SIM card.

I'm pretty sure Apple sells the $200 model of the Touch at a bit of a loss, which they can do because people who buy and iPod Touch rather than an iPhone will probably buy a lot of music, and most of them will buy it through Apple (or subscribe to Apple Music).

The only other smartphone makers that have significant music services are Amazon and Google. A non-phone phone doesn't really make sense in the Nexus line, which is meant to be a demonstration of the core "Android experience". In Amazon's Fire lineup, it doesn't really make sense because it's too similar to their existing products. Actually you could argue that the Kindle Fire is the equivalent to the iPod Touch in Android world.

Re: New iPod touch

#50

Post by glhaynes »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #45
glhaynes wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is interesting. I wonder how that decision was made.

Because it's the same design it's basically always had? Apple is far more conservative with iPod Touch redesigns than iPhone. It's generally just updating the back and colors slightly to match it with current aesthetics.

It's just interesting to me that the iPod touch (which many people think of as "an iPhone minus the cellular chip") follows the design cues of the iPad (which many people think of as "a big iPhone, often minus the cellular chip"). There certainly doesn't seem to be any one right answer so I think it'd be interesting to hear how Apple decided on the rounding they use on the various models.
Post reply on HN