Meet the new iPod family

Apple's been a little busy it seems, since the company just announced three all-new iPods, plus a few new colors and price points for existing products. From smallest to largest we have the PRODUCT (RED) iPod shuffle, which is accompanied by some other new colors, the iPod nano on the left up there, the iPod classic in the middle, and the iPod touch on the right.

[Gary @ Sep 5th 2007 2:47PM]

sweet

[Alan Partridge @ Sep 5th 2007 2:47PM]

disapointing day, the only good news was a $200 price cut on the iphone (well good news for anyone who hasn't bought one yet)

[shoeshine @ Sep 5th 2007 2:48PM]

The fatty is such an ugly bastard. I love the size on the classic though. I may just have to buy one. 160 gigs is nice.

[Justin @ Sep 5th 2007 2:48PM]

No Google Maps app on the iPod touch is lame.

[404error @ Sep 5th 2007 2:52PM]

Just use Safari?

[Arjy @ Sep 5th 2007 2:53PM]

Looks liks like it will be added. Still space for another icon

[Phour ZwanZig @ Sep 5th 2007 5:53PM]

So from the looks of things.. the iPodtouch is just a PDA (iPhone minus the phone)

[Homeboy @ Sep 5th 2007 2:49PM]

The iPod Touch is a crippled child which should have been discarded. I want one with a harddrive atleast 60GB. Neither do I have the time to wait until next year for a 32Gb iPod touch. I've already waited 6 months for this.

Steve has broken my heart.

[dagamer34 @ Sep 5th 2007 8:39PM]

You're completely unrealistic in knowing how much NAND flash currently costs. Why don't you just go ahead and ask for the jesus iPod with 1TB of flash, 100hrs of battery life, and costs $200 while you're at it?

[mewantphone @ Sep 5th 2007 2:50PM]

Prediction: apple will bump the iphone to 16GB soon.

[Alexander @ Sep 5th 2007 6:24PM]

Umm... They already have.

[Sean @ Sep 5th 2007 2:52PM]

Has apple completely lost it...? Why would they offer the ipod touch. Sure it has a 16gb option, but that just makes it the same price as the iphone! This user thinks apple has killed their own product.

[hello @ Sep 5th 2007 2:54PM]

me2

[mewantphone @ Sep 5th 2007 2:55PM]

no, iphone is a phone (and you must like att) and touch is a music player. you get more choices.

[pentumforever @ Sep 5th 2007 2:58PM]

here are actually people outside of the US, they simply can't buy an iPhone.

Even trough I'm one of these person I won't buy it. No Mail? No Google Maps? No iPod touch! iPod classic is my new star :)

[jamma @ Sep 5th 2007 3:05PM]

Wno, iphone is a phone (and you must like att) and touch is a music player. you get more choices."

Not only that, but no new contract, no monthly fees, and no forest sized bills.

[justin block @ Sep 5th 2007 3:33PM]

how am i supposed to enjoy all my movies and songs on that beautiful widescreen with only 16 gigs... and of course no way to add more memory

[Alan Partridge @ Sep 5th 2007 2:54PM]

Does the touch have proper YouTube like the Archos 605 or YouTube Crippled like the iPhone?

[melvz @ Sep 5th 2007 2:55PM]

still after a few generations... APPLE still doesn't know how to color match their earphones with the ipod color...

[Blackthorned @ Sep 5th 2007 2:58PM]

The Classic potentially fixes my issues with the original - battery life, and a metal case is most welcome.

Having a touch screen is great if you're into that jazz but even I can see they've let the Touch out of the traps with the wrong capacity for the price.

Are Apple just seeing what they can get away with?

[Ian @ Sep 5th 2007 3:01PM]

That's it? Ooo, the shape is different and has more memory. iPod Touch? Flash only and it's that big? The touch should have the big hard disk to go with that big screen. Apple has lost it.

[Geordie Lad @ Sep 5th 2007 6:47PM]

How can they have got this so wrong? Like many others I was waiting on these announcements to buy an iPod for video - for trains, planes, automobiles having something smaller and less cumbersome than a DVD player was appealing. What I wanted was 80Gb, a 3.5" screen and replaceable batteries - Eg an Apple version of the Archos 605. I had earmarked $400 for it. For that price what I can have is 16Gb with 3.5" screen and max 5hrs video, which will likely get me 2 movies or a 2.5" 160Gb which can get me 3 movies but screen is too small. How hard is this - big screen = video = big hard disk, small screen = music = small flash.
To make matters even worse if I do buy one of these things I would need to use my 6yr old PC, rather than my 2.5yr old Mac since while the software will run on XP it will not work with OSX3.9 - so, if I have to use a PC I might as well get the Archos - madness, absolute madness.

[jordan @ Sep 5th 2007 3:04PM]

Smart, they give us one with a big screen and only 16 GIGS..

WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?!?!?!?

[AJ @ Sep 5th 2007 3:11PM]

People, keep in mind it would have shorten the battery life of the iPod Touch if they would have put a regular disk harddrive in there. Plus it would have limited its shelf life also.

AKBlade13

[Serge @ Sep 5th 2007 6:04PM]

Why? iPod know what songs will be played. It's called cache. Just add like 64MB ram, pump songs from playlist into it and powerdown HDD for like an hour. What's a big deal. Even PC market is moving into this direction. Hybrid HDD, if I am not mistaken.

[Ethan @ Sep 5th 2007 3:14PM]

Is the clicker on the nano bigger than on the iPod? Or is it a trick of the eye?

[varun @ Sep 6th 2007 12:31PM]

OMG! it seems to me apple is treading on ice on this one. this is going to be the proverbial "rabbit out of the hat" if apple can pull it off!! Ive gotta see how people are going to take this.

[netposer @ Sep 5th 2007 3:25PM]

16GB? WTF? Lame and too bad or I would have bought one today if it's capacity matched or exceeded my current 30GB iPod Video.

[Craig @ Sep 5th 2007 3:28PM]

you know, the 80gb ipod classic is the "perfect ipod" i've always wanted... a slim, single-platter hd ipod that will store at least 40gb of music (to match my old zen jukebox 3). now it's out (two years too late), and the ipod touch establishes a new definition for the "perfect ipod". if only it had a higher memory capacity...

[Steve @ Sep 5th 2007 3:50PM]

I'm rather unimpressed by the ipod touch (but I wasn't particularly gaga over the 4/8 gig iphone either). $249 for 80 gig is pretty sweet, but I wonder if Apple hasn't opened the door for Microsoft to actually get in with a (fully thought-out, please) competitor. Hell, even the Apple fanboys are taking hard looks at the Zen at this point -- who would've thought?

[Anto @ Sep 5th 2007 3:53PM]

What were those comments earlier about a new Zune, soooo funny!! Apple trumps'em AGAIN!!

[Hunter @ Sep 5th 2007 3:45PM]

How long will it take George Hotz to figure out how to add a VOIP app to the Ipod Touch and make it a Wifi Iphone?

[leonard.low @ Sep 5th 2007 4:49PM]

Probably just slightly longer than it takes for someone to figure out how to add a microphone to the Touch... :)

[Ratchet the Lombax @ Sep 5th 2007 3:50PM]

I was thinking about getting an iPod touch but at only 16gb it hardly seems worth it to me. How hard would it have been to add the touch screen to the 160gb iPod? I would even be willing to pay $100 over the current asking price of the 160gb iPod for something like that. So I guess I will have to go with the 160gb iPod classic since I really couldn't care less about the internet or youtube features of the iPod touch. I just use mine for music so hard drive space is the #1 feature I look for.

[Michael McQuaig @ Sep 5th 2007 3:53PM]

I am sorry.. but.. did the ipod just jump the shark?

[matthew @ Sep 5th 2007 3:54PM]

this is definitely a transition line-up. apple is trading off uniformity for profit.

[Brendan @ Sep 5th 2007 3:57PM]

anyone think we will be able to DL the new interface for previous gen ipods? I have a 5G video and like the new interface, don't think i need to buy a touch or 80gb classic.

[bl0nde @ Sep 5th 2007 3:57PM]

In summary:

ringtones - lame
shuffle refresh - whatever
nano refresh - uuuugly, should have had a 12/16gb flash model for $249
ipod refresh - 3.5" touch screen + 16GB = not many happy geeks. 160gb + $349 = more happy geeks

[Jason Baldwin @ Sep 5th 2007 4:16PM]

Am I missing something, or is this the first time in the nearly six years since the iPod launched that there's no white model anywhere in the product line? Interesting from an industrial-design-as-icon standpoint.

[Xzavier @ Sep 5th 2007 4:02PM]

Touch screen or not, It sure is hard to justify the new iPod vs the iPod Classic. OUCH!

I want to look cool, not *financially stupid* if their is such a thing?

:D

[Miker @ Sep 6th 2007 2:23AM]

Muggers, start your engines. Anyone with white headphones is fair game...and of course the people buying their newly purchased "lovliness" will want to show it off... silly people...

[S4Rs @ Sep 5th 2007 4:25PM]

Where is the Freakin Bluetooth? If I have a smartphone I cant justify the touch.... But it would compel me to buy a regular phone and use that to answer my calls, hold my calender ect.... How about stereo bluetooth headphone support? use the bluetooth to access the internet on my EV-DO phone!!!! Free up the docking cable. All Mac PCs and notebooks have bluetooth for heavens sake. I wouldn't mind seeing a camera on it either. maybe some VoIP video calls with other Ipod touch users.

[leonard.low @ Sep 5th 2007 4:46PM]

Totally agree, man - A2DP has been around for YEARS and still hasn't made it onto an iPod. I would have thought that would be, like, an obvious new feature for the iPod range.

16GB on the Touch is really terrible. Classic has nothing new. Nano is ugly. Shuffle... in red... yeah whatever.

Pretty underwhelming. I'm just wondering if the Touch has the iPhone's accelerometer, or if it requires manual adjustment to go from portrait to landscape.

But that's really just to refine my evaluation of whether I think it's poor, or terrible. :P

[leonard.low @ Sep 5th 2007 4:47PM]

Totally agree, man - A2DP has been around for YEARS and still hasn't made it onto an iPod. I would have thought that would be, like, an obvious new feature for the iPod range.

16GB on the Touch is really terrible. Classic has nothing new. Nano is ugly. Shuffle... in red... yeah whatever.

Pretty underwhelming. I'm just wondering if the Touch has the iPhone's accelerometer, or if it requires manual adjustment to go from portrait to landscape.

But that's really just to refine my evaluation of whether I think it's poor, or terrible. :P

[dan kavanagh @ Sep 5th 2007 7:42PM]

I would so much rather have my 4gig slim samsung phone, my ad2p, and like $140 than a 8 gig (the range between 4-29 is pretty much worthless, I either want all my music or just the good stuff) touch screen and all those wires. By the way, new interface? i'd still rather use rockbox. Apple... you fail.

[Sean @ Sep 5th 2007 5:23PM]

Seriously, where is the iPod Touch with 64GB flash, wifi, bluetooth and great battery life for under $400? Oh, it's not possible.
It's easy to be a hater when you have no concept of reality.
What more can you expect? The entire new line supports video which is somewhat processor (read battery) intensive. If they add bluetooth then the battery life goes away or they have to make it larger. If they increase the flash memory then the price becomes (more) exorbitant. If they switch to a hard drive then it becomes larger and the battery life gets worse.
Sure all of these things are possible, but only at a much higher price.

[reticulate @ Sep 5th 2007 5:25PM]

I thought the new iMacs were an aberration, but this makes it official.

Apple jumped the shark.

[Leo @ Sep 5th 2007 5:30PM]

WTF is the point of this post? Was this to re-iterate the different iPods that were released today in case you missed the individual posts about each product? Maybe you guys thought there wasn't enough Apple crap all over the place. Seriously!

1. Apple announces new 3rd Gen Nano!!!! :):):):):):)
2. Apple's new iPod Classic!!!!! holy shit!!!
3. Apple's iPod Touch gets official!!!!!
4. Just in case you missed the other Apple posts... Meet the new iPod family!!!!!

I think that in a few minutes you guys should do another post re-capping the days Apple events... you know... just in case.

[BIg Al @ Sep 5th 2007 6:33PM]

No comments about what codecs this things supports? I'm assuming divx is out of the question?

[BIg Al @ Sep 5th 2007 6:35PM]

Never mind. I found them.

Video

H.264 video, up to 1.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Low-Complexity version of the H.264 Baseline Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; H.264 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Baseline Profile up to Level 3.0 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats