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.

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 5th 2007 7:40PM]

*yawn*

[gs6456 Posted Sep 5th 2007 7:43PM]

Everyone seems to be unfazed by what I think is the coolest announcement today; a 160GB player. For those of us who buy these sort of things for one reason only, to listen to music, this is fantastic.

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 5th 2007 9:02PM]

I agree with you 110% I only use my current 40gb ipod for music and it's dang near full now. I will be getting a 160gb ipod "classic" since I use my ipod in my car so 160gb is great for me. I can get my entire music collection on it with about 40gb left over.

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 5th 2007 8:56PM]

....can i check my EMAIL on this thing (ipod touch)????

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 7th 2007 6:27AM]

yes if u have web based e-mail - yahoo mail, gmail, etc. It doesn't have an e-mail app!

[bloody toast Posted Sep 5th 2007 9:43PM]

wow what ugly media players...especially that fattie one
just like 1/4 of all americans who are defined as "obese"

[mayq Posted Sep 5th 2007 11:34PM]

wonder if tom dickson will blend them all together...

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 6th 2007 2:02AM]

:( Im sad barely anyone likes the new ipods.
I think they are amazing and even though the new nano is short and fat it has a nice screen.
And video.
And cover flow.

But...

Im gonna have to get the touch.

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 7th 2007 6:16AM]

OK, summary:

-the nano is very small but has a bad form factor; video-good, price-excellent, coverflow, new interface - nice;
-the shuffle has new colors-nice for the ladies (I know my girlfriend will love the red one)
-classic finally has a name (ALEEELUUUUIIIAAA), 160 GB-are f*cking kiddin' me (bigger than my hard drive), ugly as hell, new interface-nice, price-good;
-the touch is beautiful (no doubt about it) slim therefore small storage (I know the 8GB will suit me just fine), multi-touchscreen - excellent, calendar, address book, calculator, maybe google maps in the future - excellent (no need 4 basic PDA anymore), youtube - whatever, safari web browser - good (support for AJAX apps like in the iphone - great), running crippled down version of OSX for iphone - nice (good interface, no developer kit - bummer), no bluetooth (bummer). PRICE : 300 $ for 8 GB version (excellent for what is offers), 400$ for 16 GB - controversial ( better off buying classic 160 GB if u're a music junkee or 8GB iphone - for americans but that involves extra fees so scratch that off). It's great for euros and asians that don't want to pay extra money for their pseudo-iphones.

Personal opinion: I will get a brand new ipod touch 8GB in Spring 2008 when the price will go down 9i hope). happy with my nano till then.

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 13th 2007 5:32PM]

I've only seen this mentioned in a couple of places, and no one has bothered to reply to it, so I thought it would be a good idea to ask it here. According to Apple's own "Which iPod Are You?" page at it's site (http://www.apple.com/ipod/whichipod/), the capacity for the 8GB nano is listed as "Up to 2,000 songs, up to 7,000 photos, up to 8 hours of video". Yet the 8GB touch is listed as "Up to 1,750 songs, up to 10,000 photos, up to 10 hours of video." I don't get it guys. Why does the touch hold fewer songs, but more photos and video than the nano. Shouldn't the touch be proportionally less across the board than the nano, given the fact that the 8GB on the touch must also hold a fatter OS? Why are these numbers all wonked up?