Well Apple... you sorta let me down, and sorta didn't

So today was Apple's media event.

It was exciting, and a let down. iPod Nano (the fatty). ugly and not something.

The iPod "classic" pretty much a thinner model of the 5th generation iPod video blah blah. 160gb, neat but I don't even fill my 40gb Color iPod. So really, 160gb? Don't care

iPod Touch... almost what I was hoping for... ALMOST.

As I said before, WIFI, not interested, however now that it's been revealed that safari is also included.. well now... that makes things interesting. Like I said, I didn't care about sharing music over WIFI, however being able to browse the web, maybe check my gmail, my calendar, etc... that has a nice place in my utility belt.

I have an N800 internet tablet right now, which is great, but also not quite what I expected, so this iPod I have quite a bit more faith in fulfilling my needs.

My biggest complaint... the HDD.. or rather the flash media... "but's it 8mm thick." whoopty fuckin' do! I think Steve has forgotten what the purpose of an iPod is... despite his earlier claims about the iPod being a DAP, and a good one. Not a radio, not a this, not a that... apparently it's all good until Steve decides it's not.

So it seems that Steve thinks that if we want WiFi and a next gen UI, we don't actually plan to listen to or carry with us, our music. I'm no audiophile, but 16gbs doesn't even hold my music library... How about this? Stop worrying about how damn small you can make it, and make it useful. I mean, really how big would it be with a 40 or 60 gb hard drive? As big as a 5th gen iPod, Oh no, the terror!!!!

 

So we'll see, how it goes. It should arrive October 2nd...

Comments
db's Gravatar Your pain is one I don't understand. I have no desire at all to carry my entire collection with me at any given time. I never have the chance to listen to more than 4 hours of music anyway, and the Nano serves those needs for me just fine.

Keep in mine too that this device has no moving parts. I really think that was the main goal. Also keep in mind that the largest flash capacity at this time is 32GB. Putting that into the iPod Touch would drive the price up, I would guess, to something very very close to $1K. They wouldn't sell any, which is why those large flash capacities aren't showing up anywhere.

Personally, I think the 8GB device will serve my needs quite well. And I don't think the Nano fatty is as ugly as the p-shopped pictures were.
# Posted By db | 9/6/07 2:42 AM
Thomas Brock's Gravatar I have to disagree with you, db.

Whether I can listen to my entire catalog of music is irrelevant. I do not want to have to return to my PC to pick and choose what music I want to hear, when I want to hear it. I want the entire collection from Diana Krall and Charlie Parker to Paul Simon and The Beatles to Foo Fighters and Barenaked Ladies. I. Want. It. All.

I do not want/need an internet tablet, PDA, etc. I need a media player. The iPod touch is a let down. It's overpriced and under-delivering and I won't buy one, just like I won't buy an iPhone.
# Posted By Thomas Brock | 9/6/07 7:17 AM
John's Gravatar @DB

Also I think Nano owners aren't the same as iPod "classic" owners. Nano owners are happy with less selection, or own less content.

I can go the whole work day listening to music, so 4 hours... not enough. and I don't like the idea of picking and choosing, why should I? Why should any consumer?

As I said, I'm being slightly hypocritical, since I did buy one. But I'm more interested in it for it's capabilities, not it's capacity. I'll hold on to my iPod Photo, just in case, and see how I do having to plan my musical tastes in advance. I don't envision I'll like that much.
# Posted By John | 9/6/07 9:49 AM
db's Gravatar Just because I have a Nano doesn't mean I don't have any music. Over 40gb on my drive now with about 200 CDs that I haven't ripped.

But, good points around. I just have never seen the need.
# Posted By db | 9/6/07 10:49 AM
Thomas Brock's Gravatar John, what do you think about the stripping of functionality to the calendar application? Check out Gizmodo's <a href="http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/breaking/apple-cripples...;.
# Posted By Thomas Brock | 9/10/07 12:41 PM
John's Gravatar I just saw that. Very interesting. Funny that I think only Apple has people that compare it's website against google cache....

Not sure what it means, whether no calendar app, or the same (initially?) read only one the iPod comes with now?

either way, I don't care much, since my Cal is in the crackberry
# Posted By John | 9/10/07 1:20 PM
Thomas Brock's Gravatar I don't think Apple is the same...I've seen similar (but don't have readily available links...) articles related to MS and Vista functionality.

The impact is that previously, the iPod touch was advertised as having calendar editing functionality, whereas now it appears that you can only view appointments.

It's certainly not a "show-stopper" shift, but, it does show a potential to remove other functionality after a product is sold...
# Posted By Thomas Brock | 9/10/07 1:46 PM
John's Gravatar I mainly meant. most companies making changes to an as yet unreleased product, don't get as noticed.

Plus Apple has a tendency to announce early, then has to make revisions, once the cat is out of the bag. IIRC that happened with the iPhone too.

My guess is, the first or second software update will include the Calendar thing...
# Posted By John | 9/10/07 3:06 PM
Thomas Brock's Gravatar John, whatcha thinking about this?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/14/ipod-touch-ship...

Seems that Apple shipped (at least) a few Touches without their OSX ...
# Posted By Thomas Brock | 9/14/07 11:27 AM
BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.9.1. Contact Blog Owner