We're talking about the iPod touch, not the iPhone.

I agree, it's a very good feature upgrade from my 2nd generation, but still.

ive used it. To me it just seems kind of lame.

heh on the face of it its because apple's software philosophy runs contrary to most here and despite that they are so damn successful - in short its a symbol of the superiority of the "enemy" over the "good guys". You can rant and rave against the philosopy (as if the retail consumer cares), but the fact is that as a company they are done very well even as Nokia sux eggs - even in the antenna debacle Jobs came out swinging and tackled the problem head on, while Nokia sticks its head in the sand and pretends there are no problems.

fact is at the end of the day the worse you can do to your enemy is not to hate them - because that shows you care - instead it is to show indifference to them. if apple wasnt so successful, they will not be "hated".

i think many here secretly would wish that Nokia were half as competent as apple in tackling issues (not so much RF engineering) and executing strategy.

Woopsies, i thought their pricing was linear. Here's the correct ones:

8GB $229
32GB $299
64GB $399

I think it's skewed to push ppl to buy the 32GB. I'd have to say the picture quality is really nice for a non camera... With geotagging apps and such thin form factor, it can be a very nice sidearm to a dslr.

@johnel: are you gonna wear the nano as a wrist watch? ;p it has an analog watch mode.

Ipod touch vs iphone (4th gen):
- No cellular
- 256MB RAM
- Non IPS, retina display
- No GPS
- Lesser quality camera
+ much thinner, almost half or 2/3rd of iphone's thickness?
+ comes in 64GB
+ 32gb touch is $299, 32gb iphone (unlocked) is $699+

Eh? a wifi-only, high-res, touchscreen tablet that makes IP videocalls (but good luck getting video to work with anything outside the same product line)?

2007 called, they want their N800 back.


But yeah, sweet hardware -- if there was a usable UNIXlike available, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

Does gsm 3g videocalls work over wifi?
I've heard people who've used dsm videocalls praising FaceTime for its high image quality and (lack of) sync issue.

In theory, no reason why not. In practice, you could only do it on a device with a SIM slot and UMA support, and using a carrier who allows video calling (i.e. not one in the US) and UMA; even then I've a reasonable suspicion it might simply not be implemented. At best, though, you'd have access to the same (rather old) codecs used for GSM video calling, so the only improvement would be in latency.

But I guess I don't see what new thing the new iTouch brings in this way; after all, the iPhone already brought video calling over WiFi (obnoxiously pretending it was the first video calling on a phone at all), the iTouch is just more of the same, right? The "been making video calls for years, stfu apple" line is a response to their claim of being first, not to a claim (which AFAIK they never bothered to make) that they offered better call quality.

I can see bragging that you're the first to add higher-resolution, lower-latency vidcalling when WiFi's available to the existing GSM vidcall support. I can maybe see bragging about WiFi-only vidcall support in a phone where all the competition has vidcalling everywhere, if you focus on your better quality, and play on the assumption that you'll usually have WiFi when you're vidcalling anyway. But I really can't see further bragging when you add the exact same WiFi-only feature to the next model of your WiFi-only product line. Again, compare it qualitywise if you like (and I'm sure it beats the N800, if only for plain camera suckitude,.let alone the codec), but "something better" != "something new". And WiFi-only vidcalling on WiFi-only devices is manifestly NOT new, just as vidcalling itself was not new with the iPhone 4.

(Of course, I haven't been following Apple news particularly well; if there is something new for the iTouch, by all means elucidate, and I shall stand corrected. )

Sure, if your DSLR was made in the late 90s and geotagging consists of manually entering latitude/longitude.

http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/specs.html

Although, maybe the wifi location service works better for you?

@benson: lol, I see you're having slight problem just saying 'no, it can't do wifi'. I guess this matters more to travellers that roams outside of their service area often. To get it working over 3G just took a few seconds to enable it on a '3g enabler' utility.

@thetree: d'oh, I didn't know they still do not install gps on wifi-only devices. Chalk up one more 'cons' to the touch list.