http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/ Engadget Comments for iPod touch review http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2010 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 9:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 9:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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). ]]>Sep 22nd 2007 9:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nYxlrsReUEU]]>Sep 22nd 2007 9:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 10:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
For something that has an entire operating system on it, it doesn't seem to do a lot of "operating".]]>Sep 22nd 2007 10:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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.]]>Sep 22nd 2007 11:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
--Doug]]>Sep 22nd 2007 11:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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.

]]>Sep 22nd 2007 12:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 2:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 5:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/And when do you people stop whining about stuff that can be handled by a simple update as if it was unchangeable ]]>Sep 22nd 2007 5:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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.
]]>Sep 24th 2007 12:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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.]]>Sep 23rd 2007 2:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
http://www.mp4nation.com/products/index.php?PID=PA20]]>Sep 23rd 2007 3:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/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.]]>Sep 25th 2007 7:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Dec 9th 2007 7:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 9:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
The shiny back has nothing to do with asthestics and everything to do with making people buy cases.]]>Sep 22nd 2007 9:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 11:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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... ]]>Sep 22nd 2007 10:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 11:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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]]>Sep 22nd 2007 11:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 5:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 6:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 9:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 11:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/the screen issue has already been addressed by apple and the new ones(week38) have fixed that problem.

]]>Sep 22nd 2007 9:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 9:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 9:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
Look at the new 'durable' Nano. Nice metal front, horrible shiny back.]]>Sep 22nd 2007 9:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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 :)]]>Sep 22nd 2007 9:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 23rd 2007 1:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 23rd 2007 10:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 10:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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. ]]>Sep 22nd 2007 10:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/

- it seems more arbitrary than gratuitous. the logical separation of their product line is gone as the new ipod line.]]>Sep 22nd 2007 10:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
However, i think the only thing steve jobs should have done is either given an option of a 160gb version of the touch and the 16 gb flash version. At at time when i have almost 30gb of music and almost 90gb of video, not only do i need a larger capacity ipod, i want one with a bigger screen as UK now has TV show downloads and is really taking off (finally)

All in all, people should stop bitching because Jobs has a clear plan, introducing flash players and giving us a somewhat limited option, then i bet the next one will come on leaps and bounds!!!! ]]>Sep 22nd 2007 2:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 10:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 11:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 6:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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.)]]>Sep 22nd 2007 10:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 2:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 10:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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.]]>Sep 22nd 2007 10:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 10:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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.]]>Sep 22nd 2007 2:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
Folks I think we are losing the last good hardware company.]]>Sep 22nd 2007 10:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/
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.]]>Sep 22nd 2007 11:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/22/ipod-touch-review/Sep 22nd 2007 11:38PM