ipod touch 4G

[infinity4]

So, this device in comparison to iPhone 4, has no GPS, non IPS panel and an inferior camera - but most significantly, only has 256MB of RAM when its bigger brother has 512MB.

What is the strategy behind this? Cost reduction? To keep older gens longer?

Anyway, I am disappointed about this, since it kinda makes me feel that this won't last as long as other models.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The old ipod touch also lacked features of the original iphone. It's not like this is a new strategy for them to be selling something for half the price with less features.

 

[Arwin]

The RAM is surprising to be honest. So far, the iPod lost features versus the iPhone but often had better performance. Now it seems that they want the camera features in there that the iPod never had before, presumably because they also want those available in games and to help boost the usefulness of FaceTime. But apparently then 512MB got too expensive?

The strategy is clear though - it needs to be cheap. That's how I got my first iPod, and I only dared trigger the iPhone purchase for my wife once I new the iPod's interface gelled with her.

I have to say though - the iPod's tinny mono (at least there is zero stereo separation if it has stereo, but I doubt it) speaker sound has been a disappointment for me from day one, and I would gladly get a thicker iPod if it had the much beefier, stereo speakers from the iPhone.

 

[brain_stew]

What is the strategy behind this? Cost reduction?.

Yup. Well profit maximisation more accurately. The differences aren't going to cost many sales but they'll help Apple's bottomline.

Anand's review killed it for me and I was quite interested in picking one up.

 

[Mike11]

Is it certain that all new iPod touch versions have only 256MB RAM? The 8GB version was always a little different and I haven't seen a teardown or analysis of anything other than the 8GB version yet.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Anand's review killed it for me and I was quite interested in picking one up.

Same here. Especially when he got to the part about FaceTime. Something I was considering picking this up for. But the built in speaker is inadequate in anything but a very quiet room, microphone is on the other side, and you have to shell out extra cash for a headphone with mic if you wanted to go that route.

Throw in the fact that the camera used is an absolute POS (the example photo of the ball coming out VERY green instead of Yellow), the CPU is underclocked, half the ram, cheap buttons, extremely subpar screen for this day and age, no flash memory slot, etc... And yet still charging an extremely high premium considering the cheap components used.

I think Apple just made my choice between an iPod Touch and a Zune (or possibly WP7 depending on price and contracts) a lot easier to make.

Regards,
SB

 

[Pressure]

With regards to the screen, it still looks a lot better than the majority of displays out there.

The thing is it is getting compared to the currently best display in the mobile segment and hardware-wise it is still faster than most smart phones.

I mean, the former iPod Touch didn't just all of a sudden become a shitty device.

 

[idsn6]

Same here. Especially when he got to the part about FaceTime. Something I was considering picking this up for. But the built in speaker is inadequate in anything but a very quiet room, microphone is on the other side, and you have to shell out extra cash for a headphone with mic if you wanted to go that route.

Throw in the fact that the camera used is an absolute POS (the example photo of the ball coming out VERY green instead of Yellow), the CPU is underclocked, half the ram, cheap buttons, extremely subpar screen for this day and age, no flash memory slot, etc... And yet still charging an extremely high premium considering the cheap components used.

I think Apple just made my choice between an iPod Touch and a Zune (or possibly WP7 depending on price and contracts) a lot easier to make.

Regards,
SB

Wait. The new iPod touch has a worse microphone, camera, RAM, and display compared to the flagship iPhone 4...and this has somehow driven you into the arms of the Zune, which has no microphone, no camera, a quarter the RAM of the iPhone, and a screen with about a fifth the resolution?

 

[Lazy8s]

Apple's missing an opportunity to push the platform by not reinforcing the iPhone 4 spec with a follow-up device that shares its hardware.

 

[Mike11]

Apple's missing an opportunity to push the platform by not reinforcing the iPhone 4 spec with a follow-up device that shares its hardware.

I'm not so sure that an iPod touch that's identical to the iPhone 4, minus cellular modem, would have been overall beneficial for Apple. Especially if the iPhone comes to all US carriers in the next 4-9 months and subsequently will also be available contract- and SIM-lock free, like it already is in most countries. Apple makes way more money on the iPhone and a too good "cheap" iPod touch would just cannibalize iPhone sales and lower Apple's margins and earnings.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Wait. The new iPod touch has a worse microphone, camera, RAM, and display compared to the flagship iPhone 4...and this has somehow driven you into the arms of the Zune, which has no microphone, no camera, a quarter the RAM of the iPhone, and a screen with about a fifth the resolution?

Not the current Zune, but a supposed future Zune device that would share some of the features of WP7, such as Xbox Live gaming for example.

With regards to the screen, it still looks a lot better than the majority of displays out there.

The thing is it is getting compared to the currently best display in the mobile segment and hardware-wise it is still faster than most smart phones.

Well the Anandtech piece compared it to a variety of displays, and the iPod touch came in a very VERY distant second to last place. It was even remotely close. For the price they are asking 229-399 USD, they should have done a lot better than that crappy screen, IMO. Sure it may be better than the iPod 3GS display, and better than the majority of last years displays, but the fact is, it is releasing now when much better displays are commonly available.

Regards,
SB

 

[RecessionCone]

Sure it may be better than the iPod 3GS display, and better than the majority of last years displays, but the fact is, it is releasing now when much better displays are commonly available.

Better with regards to displays is very subjective. Many people seem to like AMOLED screens with the Pentile matrix (like the Droid Incredible, Nexus One, etc.)
I think they are hideous. They have only 2/3rds the resolution they claim to have (since each pixels has only 2 sub-pixels instead of 3), and they can't render text well at all, since sub-pixel antialiasing is completely defeated by their asymmetric sub-pixel layout.
They may look good for photos and videos, but for text, which is the main reason I use mobile devices, they are hideous. Everything looks like it's being viewed through a screen door.

I would choose the iPod touch's poor black level and narrow viewing angle, coupled with its extremely high pixel density, over the purportedly superior AMOLED display - any day.

 

[Arun]

I actually cancelled my iPod Touch 4G pre-order today given just how bad the screen seems (I knew it might be worse, but not by that much) and how disappointing the 256MB RAM is. The weak speaker doesn't help either. Of course, Apple benefits since that means I've finally decided to bite the bullet and buy an iPhone 4...

The lower RAM is nearly certainly pure greed, but the screen very likely isn't (although it might have helped). The quantities Apple needs for these products is phenomenal, and there were rumours that they had run into supply shortages for the iPhone 4 screen. I don't know if that's true, but there's no way they could have used the same screen for the iPod Touch 4G and not run into big supply problems. So they had to choose another screen from another supplier, and it had to be the same size and the same resolution. It's plausible that there were no better choices in the ones they could buy in that kind of volume.

 

[idsn6]

Not the current Zune, but a supposed future Zune device that would share some of the features of WP7, such as Xbox Live gaming for example.

Wait. You're so offended that the iPod touch doesn't have all the features of the most desired phone on the planet that you've instead chosen some nebulous future device that does not exist outside your imagination?

 

[Exophase]

Wait. You're so offended that the iPod touch doesn't have all the features of the most desired phone on the planet that you've instead chosen some nebulous future device that does not exist outside your imagination?

Or has chosen to wait and see anyway. Is that such a big deal? Apple is clearly releasing a product that's far below what it could have been, and that says something. Other companies might be more willing to release a higher grade design, for a higher price premium of course.

 

[idsn6]

Or has chosen to wait and see anyway. Is that such a big deal? Apple is clearly releasing a product that's far below what it could have been, and that says something. Other companies might be more willing to release a higher grade design, for a higher price premium of course.

I'm confused more than anything. A Macbook doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a Macbook Pro. Does that "say something"? How does it make sense to feel cheated out of feature for feature parity with a phone more than twice the price? It's just strange to see these complaints that the touch doesn't measure up to some fevered dream machine when, really, what else in its market category even comes close?

 

[Exophase]

I'm confused more than anything. A Macbook doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a Macbook Pro. Does that "say something"? How does it make sense to feel cheated out of feature for feature parity with a phone more than twice the price? It's just strange to see these complaints that the touch doesn't measure up to some fevered dream machine when, really, what else in its market category even comes close?

You're comparing two devices in the same class. iPhone and iPod Touch are not supposed to be. Apple is breaking their own precedent here, in making an iPod Touch that isn't an iPhone minus the phone features. I think they're deliberately trying to segment the market to not steal away iPhone sales. People want a high end iPod without a phone contract and in a few critical ways this isn't something Apple wants to deliver on.

The price isn't the issue. I think if Apple were willing to sell a range of models with the current Touch's specs and ones more in line with the iPhone 4's people would have less problem. But it's quite subtle, because the "on paper" specs of a lot of Touch features aren't worse, they're just using markedly inferior components. Can't hardly do a good job selling the iPod Touch model A with the "worse Retina Display, camera sensors, and speakers" vs the model B with the "good kinds." The only thing they could really do is sell a 512MB RAM version. I mean, they sell ones with larger flash, so why not? The difference in cost between the 256MB and 512MB of RAM for them is probably quite small and they could easily justify a cost of > $25 more for it. But they don't want people to have 512MB iPod Touches.

Of course, people are fully going to expect iPhone 4 level components and are probably going to feel ripped off at being given anything less..

 

[aaronspink]

The lower RAM is nearly certainly pure greed, but the screen very likely isn't (although it might have helped). The quantities Apple needs for these products is phenomenal, and there were rumours that they had run into supply shortages for the iPhone 4 screen. I don't know if that's true, but there's no way they could have used the same screen for the iPod Touch 4G and not run into big supply problems. So they had to choose another screen from another supplier, and it had to be the same size and the same resolution. It's plausible that there were no better choices in the ones they could buy in that kind of volume.

The display issue is a pretty general issue right now. All the suppliers have been caught off guard with the demand for the high res/high quality small displays. Though in certain ways, it is hard to blame them since the market for larger displays has primarily been a race to the bottom going from MVA/IPS/etc to completely poor but cheap TN displays. They've seen the market completely fall out first at 19", then 20/21/22", now 24/26/28" and soon likely 30". Samsung just recently announced an extremely large investment to bring forward production capacity at their new factory. LG which produces the iPhone 4 display is doing the same. There have been reports that LG has so far been having a lot of trouble even keeping up with the volume requirements for apple. They reports say that LG has volume capacity for ~4M per month but yields due to defect requirements have so far prevented them from hitting that level. It will be interesting to find out who the source is for the new touch display but I've wager it might be sony who apparently has excess capacity right now because everyone wants either the samsung AMOLED or the the LG displays.

There is no doubt that the IPS display in the iphone 4 is incredibly high quality. Having compared it with the latest AMOLED HTC based phones, I really think that in general use there is no question its the best display on the market. I really hope samsung can sort through the various issues and get out 3 color pixel AMOLED within a reasonable timeframe.

 

[aaronspink]

Or has chosen to wait and see anyway. Is that such a big deal? Apple is clearly releasing a product that's far below what it could have been, and that says something. Other companies might be more willing to release a higher grade design, for a higher price premium of course.

The simple issue is that pretty much no one can release a new high end handheld display atm. Next year when LG/Samsung get their new capacity online, yes, but right now its almost impossible to get either a high pixel density AMOLED or IPS display in the 3-5" form factor. The entire supply has been allocated by HTC/Samsung for AMOLED and by apple for IPS. You quite literally cannot buy the high grade high res displays atm and it isn't an issue of money, every single one coming off the lines are already under contract. Both Samsung and LG should be able to significantly increase supply starting sometime next year with a ramp to 10x current capacity as the medium term goal at both companies. In the meantime, we'll have to deal with people either shipping lower grade high res displays or high grade lower res displays.

 

[Xmas]

Well the Anandtech piece compared it to a variety of displays, and the iPod touch came in a very VERY distant second to last place. It was even remotely close.

Black levels and contrast ratio alone don't tell the whole story, though. Viewing angles, sunlight readability, colour reproduction, pixel density and subpixel pattern can play an equally important role. Had Anand chosen to put pixel density in a chart it would have been a clear winner along with the iPhone 4.

The best way to judge a display panel is to look at it for yourself.

Better with regards to displays is very subjective. Many people seem to like AMOLED screens with the Pentile matrix (like the Droid Incredible, Nexus One, etc.)
I think they are hideous. They have only 2/3rds the resolution they claim to have (since each pixels has only 2 sub-pixels instead of 3), and they can't render text well at all, since sub-pixel antialiasing is completely defeated by their asymmetric sub-pixel layout.
They may look good for photos and videos, but for text, which is the main reason I use mobile devices, they are hideous. Everything looks like it's being viewed through a screen door.

I completely agree. Interestingly, after seeing the excellent close-up photo in this review I think I now understand where the screen door effect comes from. It's not the Pentile arrangement per se, but the fact that there is a little gap between the red and blue subpixels of alternating lines. I really wonder what the reason for this gap is.

The display issue is a pretty general issue right now. All the suppliers have been caught off guard with the demand for the high res/high quality small displays. Though in certain ways, it is hard to blame them since the market for larger displays has primarily been a race to the bottom going from MVA/IPS/etc to completely poor but cheap TN displays. They've seen the market completely fall out first at 19", then 20/21/22", now 24/26/28" and soon likely 30".

I really don't think it came as a surprise. For monitors the primary cirterion for most buyers is size. With a limited budget for their computing needs they can't justify paying twice as much or more for higher quality.

For mobile devices we also see the size trend, but pocketability sets a much tighter limit here. The premium for a quality screen is much smaller, both in absolute and in relative terms (since you're buying much more than a screen). Thus it's much more likely that a high quality screen is within a person's budget.

I'm kind of hoping that we're close to reaching a limit to a monitor's useful size (desk space, human FOV), so progress will concentrate more on quality than on further size increases at the same price.