Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Apple Releases New Touch Screen iPod 866

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the apple-loans-to-afford-all-the-new-toys-coming-soon dept.
JSM writes to tell us that Apple released a new version of their popular iPod music player today that boasts, among other things, an iPhone-like touch screen and Wi-Fi capabilities. "The iPod Touch will feature the Safari Internet browser and, like the iPhone, play YouTube videos. Apple also announced a new version of its iTunes music store that will allow users to buy songs wirelessly. iTunes will also sell customizable 99-cent ringtones for the iPhone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Releases New Touch Screen iPod

Comments Filter:
  • Take That (Score:5, Funny)

    by psychicsword (1036852) * <The@@@psychicsword...com> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:32PM (#20483997)
    Take that Zune!
  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:34PM (#20484035) Homepage Journal
    While they're at it, they should build mobile phone capabilities into the thing as well. Then they'd have something!
  • by elysian1 (533581) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:35PM (#20484057)
    For those that are interested, the 4GB iPhone is on sale for $299 while supplies last: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=BC784DCD&nplm=MA501LL/A [apple.com] The price of the 8GB iPhone dropped as well to $399.
    • by Enrique1218 (603187) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:58PM (#20484609) Journal
      I feel sorry for those early adopters who paid $499 or $599. I am going to go now, I have to break the news to one.
      • by hackstraw (262471) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:54PM (#20485807)

        Yeah, and after years, Cmdr Taco finally has to eat his words about the iPod being lame because it doesn't have wifi.

  • by acomj (20611) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:35PM (#20484059) Homepage
    For a device that seems to play video well (and made for it) 8/16 GB doesn't seem like enough. Especially since the "ipod classic" comes in 80/160GB flavors at the same price point( with a small not so good for video screen).

    Otherwise it looks nice.
    • by njfuzzy (734116) <ianNO@SPAMian-x.com> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:14PM (#20484989) Homepage
      I have an iPhone, and this isn't as much of an issue as I thought it might be. At these resolutions, with Apple's codecs, you get a remarkable amount of video into 8 GB. I tend to have a few podcasts, and a couple of DVDs, and I still have a couple of gigs to spare. You can't carry your collection, but you can carry everything you might want to watch until you get back to your computer to re-synch.
    • by dazedNconfuzed (154242) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:16PM (#20485037)
      Yes, 16GB of flash memory isn't enough.

      Yes, they could jam a hard drive in there.

      BUT ... by creating a huge demand for flash (or other suitable) memory, there's more motivation to produce higher capacity & lower prices thereon.

      Yes, you might not have the capacity you want now ... but this tact will get you something better sooner.

      Wasn't long ago the idea of a flash-based iPod was seriously scoffed at on /. ... but by creating the demand, the supply has appeared.
  • by jcr (53032) <jcr@NoSPaM.mac.com> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:35PM (#20484069) Journal
    iPhone 8GB price drop from $599 to $399.

    At that pricing, they could sell 5M units by the end of the year. That's a very aggressive move for market share.

    -jcr

    • by hypermanng (155858) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:43PM (#20484283) Homepage
      That truly is a steep drop in price. Have their supply and production costs dropped that much, or are they sacrificing margin in the expectation of recovering it in subscription fees? I tend to suspect the latter, which amounts to subsidized pricing.

      Of course, it's also possible that they inflated the initial sale price a little to allow for the steep drop. This would seem like a good way to make a little extra money and reinforce the exclusivity of iPhone ownership, but dropping the price now has to piss off existing customers, who must feel like they've been had.
      • by jcr (53032) <jcr@NoSPaM.mac.com> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:57PM (#20484599) Journal
        During the earnings call, Peter Oppenheimer said that Apple expected to have lower margins this quarter due to "product transitions". I suppose that's what he was referring to, knowing that Apple was planning to drop the price (and the margin) on the iPhone by a hefty amount.

        -jcr

      • by AHumbleOpinion (546848) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:10PM (#20484913) Homepage
        That truly is a steep drop in price. Have their supply and production costs dropped that much, or are they sacrificing margin in the expectation of recovering it in subscription fees? I tend to suspect the latter, which amounts to subsidized pricing.

        No, Apple is maximizing revenue. It is called walking down the price curve. Everyone has a different willingness to pay, some much higher than others. If you make a product available to everyone at a widely acceptable price you lose revenue from those who would have paid more. So you introduce a product at a high price point that only a few are willing to pay and slowly reduce the price over time. This way all sales are closer to what the various individuals were willing to pay. Note that there needs to be an absence of substitute products. Sometimes this strategy fits in well with initial production and supply problems. However in this case I expect it is mostly revenue maximization.
      • by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:43PM (#20485593)

        Of course, it's also possible that they inflated the initial sale price a little to allow for the steep drop. This would seem like a good way to make a little extra money and reinforce the exclusivity of iPhone ownership, but dropping the price now has to piss off existing customers, who must feel like they've been had.


        Bingo! Basically, they figured that they'd sell a metric butt-load for the first two weeks regardless of price, so they decided to price them ludicrously to take advantage of that. It's economics 101. Early adopters pay through the nose - especially in consumer electronics. The same thing happened with the Razr - it came out at $400 or something crazy (with a contract), was super-popular, and then when the rage started to die down, the price started dropping. The iPhone is a slightly more extreme example of this, but it's not a new concept, especially in the fast moving mobile phone market.
  • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:36PM (#20484093)
    Will it be able to run the same 3rd party apps as the iphone?
  • AAPL down 3.5% (Score:4, Interesting)

    by roaddemon (666475) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:36PM (#20484097)
    Interesting that Apple shares are down 3.5% with this news. Was there a financial disclosure, or were investors expecting something different?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by AKAImBatman (238306)
      http://www.thestreet.com/s/iphone-shift-bruises-ap ple/newsanalysis/techtelecom/10378004.html?cm_ven= CBSM&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA [thestreet.com]

      "The iPhone buzz is wearing off.

      "AT&T (T - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating) shares dropped 2% Wednesday after Apple (AAPL - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating) made two moves that took a little more sparkle off this summer's heavily hyped smartphone debut. "
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by toQDuj (806112)
        trust the Street to correctly identify the source of any apple-stock-related hiccups. They've been a wonderfully anti-apple enterprise. Almost like the Register, except that the latter doesn't actually put so much anti-apple spin on the news bar a negative comment here or there.
    • Re:AAPL down 3.5% (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mononoke (88668) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:47PM (#20484381) Homepage Journal
      Due to pre-anouncement speculation, Apple stock always rises, then fall immediately after the event. Jobs could announce a cure for cancer, and the stock would still fall.
    • Re:AAPL down 3.5% (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mattintosh (758112) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:50PM (#20484437)
      Just some (attempted) profit-taking. Everybody buys AAPL right before an announcement, then sells shortly afterward to get some fast cash. Only the ones that buy several days in advance make anything, but the effect is tried-and-true. It's been happening around every Apple product announcement for the last couple of decades, with varying share prices of course.
    • by jcr (53032) <jcr@NoSPaM.mac.com> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:06PM (#20484805) Journal
      Anytime Apple announces a new product and omits the anti-gravity feature, the stock takes a hit for the next day or so. That's when I add to my AAPL holdings.

      -jcr

  • meh. (Score:5, Funny)

    by TMonks (866428) <TMonganIV@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:37PM (#20484111)
    So its got wireless, but still less space than a nomad. lame.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      According to the WP, the original NOMAD Jukebox had 6GB of memory, and the Jukebox 2 had 10GB.

      The iPod is no longer lame.
  • Boned and cool (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SilentChris (452960) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:37PM (#20484115) Homepage
    Phatpod iPod Nano - Like your sleek device for workouts? Too bad, go get a Shuffle - BONED
    $.99 ringtone on top of $.99 to buy the song (certain songs only) - BONED
    Starbucks "integration" - now my iPhone will spend a few extra seconds every time I hook up to a Wifi access point looking for coffee music - BONED
    We managed to fit really nice HDs in iPods, but not the new Touch iPod - but you get a few millimeters back - BONED
    $599 to $399 price drop in 2 months - EXTREMELY BONED

    iTunes Store wireless - kind of cool. Wish they'd do the same thing with TV shows in music (that's what I'd be inclined to buy in an airport somewhere)

    All in all, a particularly boneworthy afternoon.
  • current round-up (Score:5, Informative)

    by chriss (26574) * <chriss@memomo.net> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:37PM (#20484135) Homepage

    iPod shuttle
    just new colors
    1GB, $US79

    iPod nano
    all new with 320*240 2" screen, can play video, coverflow, brighter display
    4GB $149, 8GB $US 199
    slighly wider, but much shorter, 20% heavier than previous model

    iPod classic
    like the old iPod, now with 80GB/160GB instead of 30GB/80GB, coverflow
    80GB $249, 160GB $US 349

    iPod touch
    like the iPhone without the phone
    slightly smaller and slimmer: iPhone is 45% thicker
    8mm thin
    WiFi, Safari
    8GB $US 299, 16GB $US 399

    iPhone
    killed the 4GB version
    reduced 8GB version from $US599 to $US 399
    11.6mm thin

    • by sootman (158191) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:47PM (#20484377) Homepage Journal
      Yes, that's right--a 33% price drop after just two and a half months. Existing iPhone customers can bring their phone to their local Apple retail store and get a white-on-black shirt that says 'Chump' or 'Sucker', your choice.

      (I bought a 4 GB refurb model last week for $399. However, that does not qualify me for a shirt.)
  • Changes the Web (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lally Singh (3427) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:37PM (#20484137) Journal
    Now we'll start seeing a real mobile web.

    How many hands is this new iPod going to go into? How many of them will start really doing mobile web browsing as a day-to-day activity? Mobile facebook is digital crack, that you can't leave at your home or in your laptop now.

    Man I wish these things had GPS...
  • by PJ1216 (1063738) * on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:38PM (#20484153)
    They didn't bring the touch screen to the larger capacity "classic" models. I'm curious as to why they're striving towards dropping actual hard drives in favor of flash memory. Some of us like the large capacity, but would also like some of the nifty features that they're bringing in to the flash models. Why can't they drop the "classic" models and just make them touch screen as well?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tumbleweed (3706) *
      I'm not sure how useful a touch screen would be with a screen as small as the iPod classic has...maybe if you used a stylus or something...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PJ1216 (1063738) *
        I mean replace the screen with the larger touch screen. I just want the touch screen capabilities, but the larger capacity. I don't care about making the physical size of the ipod thinner. I want capacity and I want the cool touch interface, but apparently I have to choose and since capacity is somewhat nonnegotiable, I need to go with the larger capacity. I put a lot of tv shows on there (quite a few different shows with numerous seasons and I use it as my main source for viewing, so I carry a lot more
    • by Mia'cova (691309) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:51PM (#20485749)
      I think the big reason is they don't want the ipod to eat into iphone sales. An iphone with a hard drive would be too big. No one wants that fat of a phone. But if you had to pick between a phone of your choice + 160 gb ipod touch or just an 8gb iphone, a lot of people would probably skip the iphone. Right now, the iphone actually gives you functionality you can't get anywhere else (though some would argue this all day long..). After all, Apple makes a good bit of change off the contracts. I think it was what? $8 / month comes back to them from contracts. So if they put something out that will steal iphone subscribers, it had damn well better make up that $192 in another way. So in short, a classic HD based ipod with the touch interface doesn't make business sense right now.
    • by FuturePastNow (836765) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @08:43PM (#20488507)
      I imagine that the hard drive is the single biggest point of failure on "classic" iPods. The player gets bounced around, the drive packs it in, and if it's a warranty repair that's Apple's money down the drain.

      Eliminate the hard drive, and that leaves the battery and the screen as the only failure-prone components.
  • by bogie (31020) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:40PM (#20484215) Journal
    Way to ruin the Nano Apple. It was in no way a good idea to bloat the Nano so we could have video on it. Honestly, most of us simply don't want to watch video on a 2" screen. We wanted a cheaper Nano with more memory.

    Nice job on the other ipods though. Hacked Ipodtouch + Skype = Goodness? Boy would that put a stick in Apple's craw.

    Best comment heard so far regarding the Nano: "Does it do the truffle shuffle?"
  • by Clockwurk (577966) * on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:41PM (#20484223) Homepage
    Apple released some nice products today, but had some disappointing moments as well. First, the new ipod classic looks nice and the bump to 160gb is nice. The other announcements were not as exciting. The new nano looks ugly and didn't get a storage bump. The ipod touch looks very nice, but they should have used the 160gb hdd from the classic instead of flash.

    The iPhone news was the biggest let down. For all the talk of Apple "redefining" the cellphone industry, the event today showed that they have no intentions of being anything other than just another gouger. The write-up was wrong. Ringtones aren't $0.99, they are $0.99 for songs that you purchased already from itunes, so they are $1.98 and you can't use music that you got from other sources.

    The other nice move was dropping the price on the iphone. I personally think this is a great move, even if it is a slap in the face to all the early adopters (henceforth referred to as "suckers"). It was also a nice fuck-in-the-ass to all the ebayers who are sitting on $200 losses now.
  • by Spy Hunter (317220) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:41PM (#20484233) Journal
    All those people (you know who you are) who kept saying "I'd buy an iPhone without the phone", you better step up.
  • by dgerman (78602) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:42PM (#20484273) Homepage
    Now we have a direct competitor to the N800, and the "Touch" is actually cheaper (at least in Canada) than the N800.

    I am not suggesting a "Touch" will have an open platform, ready for hacking. But for the regular folk, who just
    want Wifi, and an agenda/calendar, the Touch will be enough. Wifi, in my opinion, is the killer app for those who
    don't want a cell phone (yes, we exist) but want an agenda. Others will prefer to continue to use a phone as a phone
    and get an ipod for its wifi. The greymarket of iphones being shipped overseas (even before the hacks) are evidence
    that there is a market for this.

    Also, I own a N800 and an Ipod video, and in my opinion the sound quality of the N800 is lower than the ipod. But that is just my opinion.

    --dmg
  • by Creosote (33182) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:45PM (#20484317) Homepage
    I don't understand the impetus behind removing all tactile controls from a portable audio player.

    The iPod is already harder to use than many other brands with buttons if you're driving, cycling, jogging, or walking and want to be able to adjust volume or start/stop without looking at the device. With a fair amount of practice you can learn to orient the iPod and manipulate the scroll wheel without looking at it. Is this even theoretically feasible with an iTouch? Or am I going to have to dodge imbeciles swerving all over the road while scrolling through their playlist even more than I do already?
  • Transition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Belgand (14099) <belgand@@@planetfortress...com> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:47PM (#20484387) Homepage
    Apple really seems to be in a state of flux right now with their iPod/iPhone lines.

    The release of the iPhone went well, but it's really pricey and historically first gen Apple products do little more than set the paradigm and show future promise. By the time we get second and third gen iPhones they'll probably be pretty amazing and a lot cheaper. Just comparing my second gen iPod to the advances made in say, the fourth generation (third introduced major changes, but fourth is where it stabilized design, went color, and started to move more heavily into video) are pretty staggering.

    At the same time they're trying to reconcile the popularity of the iPhone with their ongoing iPod line and their iPod Nano line, but without dropping the core functionality of the iPod to such a degree that they lose business (i.e. by cutting the space to make room for the new features). As a result we have a mish-mash of product lines going on right now each of them with flaws.

    If anyone out there is interested in purchasing a device now is probably the worst time. Give Apple a year or so and we'll start seeing further consolidation into a more stable product line that better integrates the features of each of their currently available products. Eventually I expect we'll be getting an 80 Gig iPhone with wi-fi and third-party apps, probably in only a year or two based on the way things have been moving so far.

    When they stop making changes and start introducing only gradual improvements (like when the video iPod simply came out in a model with more storage) that's the time to go grab it. Based on their past performance though, I'd suggest waiting until then.
    • Re:Transition (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vistic (556838) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:42PM (#20485563)

      If anyone out there is interested in purchasing a device now is probably the worst time. Give Apple a year or so and we'll start seeing further consolidation into a more stable product line

      If I like the product they are offering now, then just how does the "stability" of Apple's product line even enter the picture? Will I buy an iPod, take it home, only to have it fluctuate into a different product I didn't want when I'm not looking? Sheesh.

      I think claims of not buying the first generation are pretty valid, but saying "this product isn't very good right now, because of other products the company is also selling at the same time" is the lamest excuse for now being the "worst time to buy" I've ever heard.
  • by jbarr (2233) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:54PM (#20484537) Homepage
    Having been a VERY long-time PalmOS PDA user (since the USR Pilot 1000), the prospect of a decent Apple PDA-like device very much anticipated. Palm PDA's were revolutionary, but their technological drive forward has long been stalled. This "phoneless iPhone" could prove to be a HUGE seller. My main desire for this type of device is simply because it is NOT a phone. Historically, my company has provided a phone to their specifications, and I never had a choice in the matter, so I've had to take a pass on all of the latest and greatest "convergence" devices because of the integrated phones. Now that the phone has been removed, this looks like an EXCELLENT opportunity for a new, more modern replacement to my old PalmOS PDA's. My only question is will there be third-party apps to enhance it?
    • by venicebeach (702856) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @05:04PM (#20485969) Homepage Journal

      My only question is will there be third-party apps to enhance it?
      iPhone hacking has come a long way. I am currently running several native apps on mine, including a terminal with ssh, AIM, voice recording, IRC (needs some work), text editor, preview app, some games, etc., all through a nice little package management utility (http://iphone.nullriver.com/beta/).

      I image it won't be long before people get things like Mail.app, google maps, and the other iPhone apps working on the iPhone Touch. I don't know of any reason it can't do everything the iPhone does with the exception of making phone calls and EDGE.
  • No Mail app? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kuwan (443684) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @03:58PM (#20484603) Homepage
    I don't understand why there's no Mail application on the new touch. They give us Safari for web browsing, but no email client? It doesn't make sense. Sure there are those that will say that you can use web mail with Safari. But why would you want to use web mail designed for a desktop screen instead of an email app designed specifically for the iPod/iPhone?

    Web mail sucks anyway. Besides, you couldn't configure a web mail client to auto check your email - say every time you have WiFi access. I really hope they include Mail at some point very soon in the future. Otherwise I think people will probably try to hack the Mail app on the iPhone to run on the iPod.

    Oh, and no Google Maps either!? WTF!
  • by cellocgw (617879) <cellocgw@gmaEULERil.com minus math_god> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:07PM (#20484819) Journal
    Apple's web page says 10.4.8 for the iPodClassic and 10.4.10 for the iPodTouch. I'm still very happy w/ 10.3.9 on my old iMac G4 at home, and would rather not have to shell out $$ for 10.4.x .
    Can anyone point me to some info as to what functionality I'll lose if I don't upgrade my OS (not to mention upgrading iTunes itself)?
    Funny how WindowsXP+SP2 is sufficient for all the new iPods but on Apple's own OS I would have to buy an upgrade. Grrrr....
  • by Relic of the Future (118669) <dales@nOSPAM.digitalfreaks.org> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:29PM (#20485301)
    After they buy a 99 cent (or $1.39) song from iTunes, people accept that they should pay another 99 cents to be able to have that song play when someone calls them? Why do people keep putting up with this kind of crap?
    • by zaren (204877) <holdthis@mail.com> on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @04:51PM (#20485745) Homepage Journal
      From that point of view, it sucks.

      But, try it from this point of view:

      Buy a ringtone from AT&T / Verizon / etc. for $2.50. You don't get to pick specifically what you want to use as the ringtone from that download, and in addition, you don't get to have the entire song that you want to make into that ringtone.

      So, for $2, you get an entire song, and up to a 30 second ringtone custom configured so you can hear what you want to hear
      Or, for $2.50, you get a ringtone of a pre-determined length, and only that ringtone, no entire song
  • Newton! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alextheseal (653421) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @05:03PM (#20485953)
    Long live the king. The new Newton rises.
  • General Question? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrJynxx (902913) on Wednesday September 05, 2007 @09:29PM (#20488853)
    I've read through a lot of comments and I'm seeing a lot of people discussing the iPhone price drop (which is pretty huge) and how it's a smack in the face to early adopters.

    Question: If a company purchases a few million additional components which is used in both the iPhone and ipod touch wouldn't that drive the cost down of the iphone?

    To me I see the Ipod touch as an iphone in a different suit. And since the iphone is only available in the US market their new phone (or a lot of the required components) just opened up to a massive market including Japan, UK, Canada, etc.. Also, the early adopters who went out and spent the money only proved the market was ready for such a change in user input.

    So to all future buyers of the iphone, you just lucked out. At least Apple appears to be bringing the cost savings back to the consumer. . or this could be an evil scheme to take over the phone market!

10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone

Working...