Thread: iPod Touch (threads merged)
View Single Post
ragnar is offline ragnar
2007-09-09 , 08:43
Posts: 631 | Thanked: 1,123 times | Joined on Sep 2005 @ Helsinki
#185
Originally Posted by Traecer View Post
Well, Apple really wants to sell you the Touch; the Classic is only around for a specific (loyal) iPod niche, and the Touch is the future. This was even mentioned in one of the Mac-centric podcasts I listen too; Jobs sort of brushed off the Classic intro compared to the Nano and Touch intros. Of course, there weren't that many changes, compared to 2 basically completely new products. There's a certain niche of MP3 player user that wants to carry their entire music library with them all the time, and flash memory still hasn't advanced to the point it can offer sufficient capacity to service these hardcore users.
I'm considering to buy a new iPod for my music - since the old one breaks down all the time with strange "1418" error messages that Apple denies are any real problem - but I wouldn't consider the Touch. I want a great mp3 device.

Specifically:
- Small and pocketable. Nano is great, Classic somewhat acceptable. Touch is rather brickish.
- Easy to use, under different conditions. Adjust volume, change to the next track. Now this is the biggest reason why Touch is a no-no. I can press "next track" blind, with the ipod in my pocket, as well as adjust the volume. Try doing that with a touch screen.
- Plenty of storage space for a reasonable price. Classic is great, Nano and Touch ... Well, I want 40 gigabytes at least for about half of my music library.

I'm sure the Touch will sell reasonably well, but I doubt that these people really think too much about the fact that it's simply worse to use as a mobile mp3 player than the Classic or the Nano. Touch screens aren't the holy grail for everything in the world.