, we finally thought we'd found an iPod we could really get behind. For years technology enthusiasts pondered the possibility of an Apple-made widescreen, WiFi-enabled portable media device, and they finally did just that -- even throwing in a few things that, prior to the iPhone, we might not have expected, like a full-fledged web browser, internet video player (YouTube), multi-touch interface, etc. But after playing with the touch for a few days, it's become pretty clear that Steve was right when he declared that the iPhone is still the best iPod. Read on to find out why.
Late last year. iPods had fallen into a rut: the features were stale, the form factor of the flagship device basically stopped progressing, and it started to seem like Apple didn't care or understand where portable media players were headed -- or at least didn't seem to realize what such devices were capable of. So it came as no surprise that as soon as the iPhone was announced, people began demanding that same device, sans phone. And why not? Not
everyone hates their cellphone, or wants to switch to AT&T, or lives in America (or select countries in Europe) -- and from a media player standpoint, the iPhone made the iPod technologically respectable again. Only a handful of other devices, like the
Archos 604 WiFi, come equipped with that specific bundle of features (web browser, touchscreen, and WiFi).
Fortunately for that rather sizable group of potential buyers waiting for the phoneless iPhone, it was clear that Apple had invested an enormous amount of effort (and money) into creating its mobile OS X platform, and that all those development bucks weren't going to live on in only one product -- especially not a device that is ultimately beholden to deals with cellphone carriers. So the iPhone without the phone -- the WiFi-enabled widescreen iPod -- finally started to seem more like an eventuality than some distant hope. When it was announced a couple of weeks ago, the surprise was less that Apple had been working on this device after all, and more the myriad iPhone features unexpectedly absent. We'll get to that shortly.
Media
Thankfully, as far as media playback goes, all the best stuff from the iPhone made the cut in the touch. It shares the same audio, video, and photo apps as the iPhone, which is a good thing since we still love the new Apple mobile media interface every bit as much as we did when we first reviewed the iPhone. The
iTunes WiFi Music Store works exactly as advertised; search is fast, sampling tracks and downloads are easy, and syncing tracks back to your host computer is effortless. Apple really nailed this. To date, most over the air music downloads on a portable media devices have been tedious, if not completely impractical.
Also unchanged are our primary complaints about said media playback, the same complaints we've had about the iPod for years: we don't like managing our media through iTunes, and we don't like being limited only to those few codecs Apple supports (AAC, MP3, H.264, and MPEG-4). In fact, if Apple gave us greater codec support (or even just the option to add additional codecs ourselves) and mass storage support for drag and drop while adding media, we'd probably be able to overlook the other, smaller things that ail us about iPods.
Software
Since the touch is an iPhone at its heart --
really -- comparisons on the software end of business were immediate and inevitable. We're going to assume you're at least casually familiar with the touch's progenitor, but if you didn't read over our
iPhone review or haven't much used one yourself, we're happy to say the touch remains a rock solid device on the software end. We experienced far fewer crashes now than we did with the v1.0 iPhone firmware; the rest of the interface is just as responsive and reliable.
Apple has also since made a number of improvements to the touch which have yet to carry over to the iPhone. (We're expecting the iPhone to be brought to parity with the touch in its
next firmware update, due in the next week or so.) One major annoyance, about which we took umbrage in our iPhone review, is that periods are unnecessarily difficult to type. No longer: the touch takes the BlackBerry approach, where pressing the space bar twice types a period automatically. This is a godsend.
Also improved: many of the clicks, chirps, and other system sounds have been tweaked, most often with the result of being slightly less grating than the noises of the iPhone. And, of course, the addition of international support in menus and keyboards means you don't have to be a US American to use the thing.
But it isn't what's
on the touch that caused us to sit up and take notice so much as what's
not on it. The iPhone's suite of apps set certain expectations for what the touch should include. Granted, we understand why the iPhone's mobile email app was omitted from the touch. While we still would have liked to have the option to email over WiFi, its intended purpose is as a portable media player, not a mobile communicator, so we can follow that line of thought. But why leave out its notes, weather, stocks, and Google maps apps? We know the portable doesn't include the same constant connectivity as the iPhone has with EDGE, but it's not like downloading music over the iTunes WiFi Music Store is a practical application in ways that checking for weather, or jotting down a quick note are not. The touch is still a connected portable device, after all, and what we see is Apple mimicking the limited feature set of the old, stale iPod line instead of fully realizing the touch's potential.


And let's not forget the touch calendar controversy. Why allow users to indulge in some PIM basics, like editing and creating new contacts, while not others, like editing or adding new calendar appointments? When we
confirmed that Apple had indeed dropped calendar editing from the touch, we were floored. Not even because it's that essential a function, but because we can't possibly fathom why anyone in Cupertino thought to take something of value, however small, away from for no apparent reason.
For a company that continually emphasizes its software as being the core of what drives great consumer electronics, we just can't understand why Apple chose curb the touch's capabilities right at the outset.
Hardware
With the touch, Apple's hardware is, as usual, striking when compared with many of its competitors. Ever so slightly wider (about 1mm) and significantly thinner (8mm, which is no small feat) than the iPhone, the touch has far harder, sharper edges on its facade, and a sloping, almost difficult to grip rear. It even manages to leverage that space with a large enough battery to put out more than its advertised 5 hours of video playback -- we got about 5.5 - 6+ hours. But despite its impressive thinness, after the last few months of using the far more functional iPhone, the touch left us in want. It may be the ideal size for a device of this kind, but it omits many of the simple hardware niceties we've grown used to in the iPhone.
Hardware volume controls were highest on the list of things we miss. We could just as easily live without a mute switch on a media player, but losing the hard volume buttons is rather disappointing. Granted, Apple has made it easier to get to the media controls and volume when the device is in sleep mode; just press the home button three times (once to wake, two more times to bring up media controls without unlocking it). But what's wrong with a real volume switch, too? With no hardware controls, doing something as frequent and essential as changing the volume necessitates removing the device from your pocket. Furthermore, without hard volume buttons, you can't adjust the volume at all while playing music in landscape (i.e. Cover Flow mode). This is pretty basic stuff that drives us up the wall.

Also missing -- and missed: an external speaker. Yeah, we know not every media player has one, and it probably would have added some bulk to a device so slim as the touch. But sharing samples of songs, a bit of video, or -- duh -- YouTube now instantly necessitates friends adventurous enough to use your funky headphones each taking a turn watching Chocolate Rain or the Hipster Olympics. We know in the long run it's a relatively minor thing, but it's still disappointing.

But that's not all. While we appreciate the aesthetic sacrifice Apple made in in adding a proper WiFi antenna to the touch, the odd, asymmetric black corner on the rear looks off and misplaced. We wish Apple have just placed the antenna behind the touch's face, or possibly along the top or bottom of the unit, where its sleep / wake button or headphone jack is. It's a relatively minor aesthetic nitpick, we know, but Apple obviously holds its hardware design in the highest regard, and to us the antenna seems uncharacteristically out of place for an iPod product too pristine to even have hardware volume controls.
Then there's the matter of the display. Ours happened to be one of the
"small number" of touch units with the faulty screens. It's difficult to capture in a photograph or even explain in text (so far the best shots we've seen came from
Apple-Touch), but the result is dark shades -- especially black tones -- look almost inverted. At very least it's distracting, and at worst it makes some darker video almost unwatchable. We hope Apple gets these units fixed on the double, because for us this janky screen teeters on the edge of a return-your-unit-forever dealbreaker.
And then, finally, there's the shiny chrome back side, which is just as easy as ever to keep pristine and unmarred, provided you store your iPod in a vacuum or cover it in armor. We still don't get this. Yes, people like shiny gadgets, but the glee of that first five seconds of
ooh pretty hardly outweighs the lifetime of fingerprints and scratches that the iPod's rear mirror finish accumulates. We thought Apple had learned its lesson when it gave the iPhone a matte aluminum back side. Guess not. We can't be alone in thinking chrome doesn't patina like an old pair of jeans. To us it just seems to look worse with time.
Wrap-up It's hard to argue that there isn't beauty in simplicity, especially when it comes to consumer electronics. But there's such thing as
too simple -- and sometimes too simple can turn into crippled. Most of our complaints about the touch have to do with what it lacks -- not in general, but when compared its big brother, the iPhone. Had the iPod touch come out first, the lack of a hardware volume switch, integrated speaker, and all those apps might have been perfectly passable, but now the expectations have been set, and we can't see how taking things away from users can possibly add value. Everyone in this industry is trying to give their customers more, but with the iPod touch Apple gave its customers
less in what should have been the best iPhone alternative on the market. This time around, in Apple's obsession to edit, they managed to leave some of the best stuff on the cutting room floor.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Daniel @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:43AM
Stop compairing this to the iPhone! When you do that, you get a bad review. Just review the iPod Touch. Or compair it to other iPods. Everyone's is expecting it to be another iPhone, which it is not.
Xavier Gill @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:49AM
Why shouldn't customers demand the absolute best product for thier money? Lying down and accepting whatever they give you is exactly what Apple have been expecting people to do with this latest generation of iPods and it's been a big disappointment.
Dias @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:54AM
"Or compair it to other iPods"
Which one, 160Gb iPod Classic?
As iPod it's less useful that other iPods because of crap capacity (video device? c'mon...) and low battery, so for 400$ bucks I'd like to have at least a minimal pda (translation: nuke that crappy Calendar and give me full version).
Xavier Gill @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:58AM
Also a good video showing that the Touch screen problems.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nYxlrsReUEU
rock99rock @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:40AM
Quit calling it "Widescreen". 3:2, though turns out to be great for this application, is no native widescreen format. Look it up. In the future, please refer to it as "Wider screen" :)
Luke @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:44AM
Ok, let's compare it to the other ipods. It's incredibly expensive, and the only difference is the wireless itunes music store/safari/bigger screen. Now, I don't know about you guys in the states, but here in aus, our wireless coverage is bugger all. More to the point, I don't even use the itunes music store. So really, I'm paying twice the price for the same thing with a bigger, fancier screen.
For something that has an entire operating system on it, it doesn't seem to do a lot of "operating".
mini.boss @ Sep 22nd 2007 11:10AM
How hypocritical. If it compared favorably to the iPhone then these people would be bragging "it's exactly like an iPhone without a phone" but because it is clearly missing much more than a phone then it's "comparing it to the iPhone is unfair. It's an iPod dummy."
This isn't about comparing product names, this is about comparing products. And it's very clear the Touch is closer related to the iPhone than the iPod so comparisons are essential if you're going to properly describe what this can and CANT do.
Nimrod @ Sep 22nd 2007 11:25AM
Although I do not own one, it is my understanding that you essentially have no video out with the touch, isn't that a giant step backwards.
--Doug
Andrew Harrison @ Sep 22nd 2007 12:36PM
I 100% agree with you [Daniel]
I've read about 8 or 9 reviews of the iPod touch, and have found that they fall into two categories:
The first are reviews that look at it as a product in its own right, and review it as an iPod. There are always comments on features that could be added, or are missed, but generally, reviews that look at it for what it is as a product bearing the name iPod are almost always good, giving it a rating of 4 stars or higher.
The second are reviews that really just compare it to the iPhone. These reviews have some positive comments about improvements made, but are generally negative, often giving it 3 stars or less.
Frankly, I've found that those in the latter category always sound like they are trying to justify their iPhone purchase. That's fine, but it's not very helpful to prospective buyers, especially those in countries that don't have the iPhone, or to people who don't want to sign up with AT+T.
John M @ Sep 22nd 2007 2:12PM
I think your right on...you cant demand the same apps from a pmp as you would a quasi-smartphone...I have an iphone and i love it....however, if the touch came out first and had maybe 30gb of storage capacity (which would increase the price dramaticly) it would have been a MUCH bigger hit
Oneiroi @ Sep 22nd 2007 5:11PM
I would feel like you had a point, if Apple didn't almost directly copy the OS from the iphone and then purposefully crippled the touch.
Martin Andreas Kruse @ Sep 22nd 2007 5:39PM
The Touch has video out, compared to the iPhone's lack of it.
And when do you people stop whining about stuff that can be handled by a simple update as if it was unchangeable
Alberto @ Sep 24th 2007 12:38PM
No we should compare it to the iphone. Why you ask. Because the 8gb iphone is only $100 more. Meaning the only big difference between the two should be the phone part.
The new touch is just not up to par with the iphone. First, it should have all of the capabilities of the iphone.
Where's the bluetooth? Goodness BestBuy's Insigina mp3s sport bluetooth and they are junkie players.
Why have the touch keyboard and not able to make entries and changes to iCal/ Yet you can add contacts. Makes no sense.
Yes, it's impressive and yes it's slick and thin. But am not sallow. I need something to work awesome off the bat before i commit my hard earn cash to buy it.
If all i want is a video and mp3 player. I would get an Archos 605 with twice the capabilities at a lesser price. Also the Archos knows it's place...its a media player and nothing more. The iTouch claims to be more then a media player and does everything okay and not great.
The truth is most of you won't care if I make sense or listen to engadget's review. Am glad you guys are rich enough to throw away your money. But for the poor people like me. Wait.
But if you really want one. For $100 more buy the iphone with no service. At least you will have bluetooth and more.
Paul @ Sep 23rd 2007 2:40AM
lol, U.S. Americans. Nice throwback to dummy from SC.
Basically Apple screwed up, it's getting greedy, included less features on a product which has an OS and should be able to handle more. This product needed increased capacity, similar iPhone functionality, improved design (get rid of the freaking shiny back!), bluetooth.
Just a few small things that could've been easily done. And stop being greedy Apple! Or we'll start referring to you as AppleSoft.
Bistro88 @ Sep 23rd 2007 3:00AM
how about expandable memory slots, when will they finally add that to these players. I love the UI, but the hardware and the limitations in files types is a killer. Archos is a better player in my book and with their newly signed deal for downloadable videos and music it will be as competative as the iPod.
http://www.mp4nation.com/products/index.php?PID=PA20
andy @ Sep 25th 2007 7:33PM
After reading many, many ipod touch and iphone reviews online, and the long, long list of gripes and features 'demanded' on /. ('What Do You Want In iPhone 2.0' / http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/07/09/21/2020206.shtml), it boils down to one point for me:
Steve didn't want this--the 'phone-less iphone', the touch--to be viewed as a PDA.
Expanded media slots? Exchange-support? Mobile email? GPS? iRDA? Open File Systems? Etc? Steve killed the Newton. I own several. They're great. But he didn't want it then, and he dosen't seem to want it now--or at the very least, this isn't it. Perhaps something is in the works, and they don't want this to be seen as their foray into the PDA format while they work on the real deal.
Lets not forget, for the most part, we're comparing smart phones vs personal media players.
tayg10 @ Dec 9th 2007 7:43PM
just hack your itouch (jail break). That solves all the issues stated in this review except hardware buttons. Its easy, it allows you to put on iphone apps, emulators, themes, games, etc. Pretty much what ever you want, you got.
Alan Partridge @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:46AM
It's a shame, the Touch could have been so good but theres just too many little issues with it.
The shiny back has nothing to do with asthestics and everything to do with making people buy cases.
Nick K. @ Sep 22nd 2007 11:13AM
Everyone i know with an iPhone (That's everyone i actually know, so by some law of detatchment you shall see that everyone....) has a case for it. almost no one with an ipod has a case for it. Don't say it's just the chrome backing. Besides, i don't really need to be carrying a perfect mirror with me, it's just the back of an ipod, usually resting on a table or completely covered by your hand. you won't ever see the back.
Doug Tondro @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:59AM
I see a more devious reason to have the shiny back than to make people buy cases, after all, apple didn't come up with the case idea, that was an after market thing that took off.
I think the only reason they included a chrome back is so that you would grow tired of the finger prints and scratches making you eventually buy the next generation when it came out so you could have a nice, new, CLEAN device. Ohhh Stevie, you clever dog...
Chris @ Sep 22nd 2007 11:23AM
I've got a tin foil hat for your protection, Doug.
Alan Partridge @ Sep 22nd 2007 11:45AM
@Doug
Maybe at first yes. But Apple now get a slice of any accessory with the 'Made for iPod' logo and one of the main advantages they have over over mp3 players is the huge accessory support. So it's in ther direct interest to make sure as many accesories are bought as possible. They have done many things with this in mind, from the recessed headphone port on the iPhone, disabling previous video-out cables from working with the new iPods and the chrome backs etc etc
Martin Andreas Kruse @ Sep 22nd 2007 5:56PM
The recessed jackport, has nothing to do with "disabling previous video-out cables". The iPod has video out but the iPhone hasn't (as of current frimware). The touch can't use the same cables as previous iPods, even though it's jack isn't recessed. It has to do with video resolution (it's higher on the touch) and other hardware changes. Apple might have or might not have made the older videocables for iPods obsolete un purpose, but don't blame it on the recessed jack.
Alan Partridge @ Sep 22nd 2007 6:29PM
I'm not. If you re-read my post there is a comma between the points meaning they are seperate.
nistorica @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:46AM
Glad I have the iphone,touch will make more sense if price will drop or need more storage.
ScOObyDoo @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:49AM
Without more than 16Gb I won't even consider buying this. It may be 10 times more sexy than the Archos 605, but with a tenth of the storage it's just not enough.
Chris @ Sep 22nd 2007 11:25AM
Yeah, I think it is odd that none of the reviews mention the terrible lack of space on Apple's first true media pod. It has a bettter screen for video but not nearly enough space for it.
Mercury7 @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:53AM
I was expecting a full review because yall took so long.....this is really just a commentary and a rehash of things you said before.
the screen issue has already been addressed by apple and the new ones(week38) have fixed that problem.
Scott Rose @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:58AM
Thank you for giving an honest review of this product, and basically reminding the world that Apple puts out just as much crap as they put out gold. Apple gets just as many things wrong as they get right, and the iPod touch is an example of something they got wrong. Apple put out a flawed, very incomplete product with the iPod touch, and thank you for recognizing its flaws -- so that hopefully Apple will improve this product in the future.
lyl545646 @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:59AM
waiting for Zune 2, if it doesn't go well... iPod Touch, here I come...
shaliron @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:59AM
Well, the reason for having a shiny back is obvious - so that the market for iPod cases never dies.
Look at the new 'durable' Nano. Nice metal front, horrible shiny back.
Dave.Punk.Emo @ Sep 22nd 2007 9:59AM
Something like an external speaker and volume control would be almost necessary. Even with the older iPods with click wheels, you could adjust volume in your pocket easily without even needing to look at the iPod, now needing to look at it seems like an almost backward step. Bein in Australia, I've not yet got my hands on an iPhone, nor have I been out to get my hands on a Touch as yet.
Since getting my first G4 iPod (20GB), I've been wishing I could create notes instead of just read them on the iPod. It would make it so useful, as well as being able to add calendar events. On the flip side, I can use my mobile phone for both notes and a calendar, and I tend to have my phone closer to me than my iPod.
Can you create events for calendar on the iPhone? Or is that merely a sync from iCal/Outlook?
Nice review :)
Ken A. @ Sep 23rd 2007 1:46AM
Yes you can on the Iphone but not the Itouch
Dave.Punk.Emo @ Sep 23rd 2007 10:17AM
Oh, ok, thanks for that :) Hopefully we'll get the iPhone over here soon, but being a student, I doubt my budget will stretch that far...
Erik @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:03AM
This review was spot on. I used the Touch this week on a plane and the minor complaints are aggrevating. Especially the lack of hard button volume controls. Having to bring the touch out of sleep just to adjust volume or even to change tracks was enough for me to put it back in my laptop case and bring out my trusted Nano.
doug @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:04AM
I too was floored when I heard about the crippled PIM functionality. I mean, OK, I understand market segmentation, but I think that taking the phone and camera out of the iPhone would segment off the touch sufficiently. Fortunately, that is something they can fix in firmware if they want, but the idea of Apple gratuitously removing features that would have been actually easier to leave in is downright perplexing.
More disconcerting is the lack of a hardware volume control. I have an iPhone and I find myself using that all the time when listening to music. Having an internal speaker is nice, too. Tinny though it is, I use it frequently when listening to podcasts or watching videos.
And reverting to the chromed back is odd. I thought with the iPhone and the new iMacs, Apple was going wholeheartedly over to glass and brushed aluminum.
matthew @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:36AM
"but the idea of Apple removing features that would have been actually easier to leave in is downright perplexing.
- it seems more arbitrary than gratuitous. the logical separation of their product line is gone as the new ipod line.
Juan @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:07AM
I think Engadget summed up my complaints nicely. The same-old codec selection, puzzling choices for the backplate, and removal of the GMaps and email apps made me leave the Apple store without one.
Jah @ Sep 22nd 2007 11:09AM
Apple's true values are exposed. Use their design talent to fool consumers into buying over priced products. There was no need to remove apps from the iTouch as I assume wifi could have prvided the contectivity. In the UK the iPhone comes with free wifi as this is faster then 3.5G but for the iTouch Apple feel connectivity is not adequate so they remove connectivity based apps!
Martin Andreas Kruse @ Sep 22nd 2007 6:56PM
Ahrg! Both Apple and everybody else need to get this: WiFi isn't nessesarily faster than 3G (or 3.5G in this case) I can make my old dial up connection wireless if I want too...is that then automatically faster than 3G? Hell no, and far from it! 3G actually brings you broadband speed, so it's a quiet wrong statement. I actually have mobile broadband (with 3 as the provider) My connection is 1.5 Mb/s. I have the option to go 3.6 Mb/s if I should choose so in the future. After that I have to buy a new mobile broadband modem, as this one only supports speeds up to 3.6, but that is by now fast enough. So if I take this mobile broadbnd modem and hook it up to my router, I (and everybody else covered by my router) can get on the internet via my modem...using Apples logic my modem would suddenly become much faster...why you ask? Well, Steve has several times that "WiFi is SOO much faster than 3G you know..."gah!
Nik @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:11AM
Look guys great review, but i agree with the first comment. It isnt an iPhone, it looks like one. Big deal.
But i think you are forgetting the power of numbers, the more complaints apple receives about the lack of apps, the more likely it is theyw ill update the firmware to include the oh-so-necessary notes app or calander additions. As for email, im not fussed at all, it has safari and last time i checked www.gmail.com is fairly easy to type. Lol.
(First pre-ordered iPod Touch in Sydney, Australia.)
glenn @ Sep 22nd 2007 2:01PM
A great tip: When accessing gMail, instead of using the regular website, use m.gmail.com. By doing so the screen is formatted with minimal data. It seemed to be of significant benefit.
Mercury7 @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:12AM
I did get one piece of info from this I did not have...I did'nt know you could not adjust volume in landscape mode, I hope apple will include this in a future update because I was planning on mounting mine sideways in my car below my stereo. I could still mount it up and down but it would look nicer sideways.
umijin @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:12AM
You Engadget guys hit it right on the head.
The Touch *should* be compared to the iPhone, b/c it's NOT an iPod. iPods play games, have an EQ setting, can be used as storage devices, lack a screen worth watching videos on, and lack internet connectivity.
For Apple to leave easily implemented (and useful features) off the Touch that are already coded for the iPhone is ludicrous. It seems Apple only wants us to use internet for iTunes and uTube - limiting what WE want do do with our Touch.
And I can't understand why Apple gets all pissy about people developing Apps for the Touch/iPhone that rely upon the internet. If Apple wanted otherwise, then it shouldn't have released an SDK and not insisted that apps could be added via Safari interoperability.
And what's the point of putting a freaking OS on an iPod if you can't DO anything with it.
Apple needs to get off its micromanaging, narrow thinking high horse and let US decide what WE want to do with our hardware.
umijin @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:14AM
oops meant SHOULD have released an SDK.
Morosoph @ Sep 22nd 2007 2:12PM
"Apple needs to get off its micromanaging, narrow thinking high horse and let US decide what WE want to do with our hardware."
They've been that way since they started, I don't see why they would feel like changing their mindset now. And even though this mindset keeps burning them from time to time (such as losing most of the personal computer market-share to the more open IBM and PC clones back in the day), it's also the reason they have such a positive image these days. It's easy to claim "It just works," when you control all the variables (well, they still do it better than most, I'll grant them that). Once you start letting in more third-party apps and letting users have more control over hardware and software, you end up in the realms of Windows and Linux, neither of which "just works" once you start fiddling with them (or even if you don't fiddle with them in some cases...just thought I'd throw that in there to placate the Apple fan-boys).
So, while it's sad that Apple missed some key design elements that would have made the Touch fantastic (I know I was considering buying one when I first heard about it), it's not really that unexpected they decided to flex their control muscles...and it's not likely that'll change anytime soon.
Iain @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:13AM
This latest generation of iPods has really given me a lot of doubt about Apple. Granted Apple has always been one to skew on the side of proprietary, but the intentional software crippling stance they have taken with the iPod Touch is disturbing at best.
Folks I think we are losing the last good hardware company.
doug @ Sep 22nd 2007 11:00AM
It also makes me wonder about their supposed marketing genius, too.
If they released the Touch first and everyone would have talked about how much better it is than a 'classic' iPod. "Hooray, widescreen, wi-fi, etc!"
But since they released the iPhone first, everyone talks about how the Touch is just a crippled iPhone. "What, no volume control, no speaker, no maps, no e-mail?"
By releasing the iPhone first, they raised expectations with what could be done with this form-factor, then they failed to deliver with the Touch.
It would have been SO much smarter to just do what we had all been expecting - strip out the phone and leave everything else be. Then everyone would have cheered that they could get a widescreen iPod without ponying up to AT&T.
Patrick @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:19AM
The crippled Calendar app was a deal breaker for me. All the other issues raised I would have dealt with had the Calendar function been fully functional. Hopefully changes are made because Apple could have taken advantage of the PDA market had they allowed more PIM functions. I can't get At&T where I live (nor other GSM networks) and so the iTouch would have been a great compromise for the iPhone, however, since Apple has deliberately limited its functionality I will be forced to continue to wait and see what develops...
Don Warrington @ Sep 22nd 2007 10:20AM
The best of the best will never come...steve wants his churn rate its all about £$£$£$£$£$ ohh next year and another £260 we get hardware volume control & speaker, LOL, and like sheep we follow..