We have a new shiny iPod in the shape of the 16Gb iPodTouch. Much like an iPhone it uses the multi-touch user interface to engage its user in some beautifully inuiative interaction and employs that fantastic landscape-portrait ability first seen in iPhone.
The new Nano is fat and horrible. I don’t like it one bit so am not going to talk about it. It’s iRubbish.
Watching the guided tour it’s easy to see that it works in just the way that you would expect it to, so be prepared for a fanfare from Apple fans. I’ll give you the feature headlines because there will be plenty of detailed appraisals of iPodTouch’s first day at school all over the web by the time I get into work. Gizmondo’s 5 Things We Love, 5 Things We Hate and Engadget’s Liveblog for starters.
Apart from the fact it’s a multi-touch screen product that allows you access to pictures, videos, music and more the main news is that has wireless capability allowing you to do three main things:
- Allow you to browse the iTunes music store
- Allow you to use Safari when browsing the web
- Allow you access to YouTube videos
What’s really curious is that if you are in Starbucks (only in a select few locations for the coming year all US. 3 this year, 2 more by March ’08), you can browse and download from the iTunes Store for free. You can use Starbuck’s wireless for free.
Excuse me, but how is that a good thing? Why is that worth a few minutes of the Guided Tour? Not only that I find it a rather odd decision by Starbuck’s given that they are trying to turn themselves into a record-come-bookshop anyhow? Just check here and here (this link via Barbd).
The iTunes Music store isn’t the full blown offering available online which to me seems a bit pointless. Do people who buy via wireless in Starbucks buy a certain type of music..? I guess they do.
Following hot on the heels of the acclaimed iPhone this product feels very much like an, errrrm, iPhone. Just without the phone. It looks so much like it and at only 8mm think I hope there aren’t cases of people rushing out the door thinking they’ve grabbed their phone when all they’ve got is their iPodTouch. Which could have a phone, looks like it has a phone. But doesn’t.
I guess they need to cater for those who aren’t going to buy the iPhone, but couldn’t it have been a little more different? I need to check the disk sizes that will be available, but I personally need a helluva lot space than that, so I’d be definite iPod/iPhone fodder. But with only 16Gb and everything so much like its cousin, I won’t be spending those hard earned pounds.
But then I guess I’m not the target market. I’m iPod Classic target market. Damn you Apple! You just made me spend more money. in no more than 3 lines of blog!
The new iPod will bring a new audience to the church of Apple, no doubt about it. They have met and exceeded expectations with this iPod line-up I have to concede.
Interaction-wise, of course it ‘sings’ the way you’d want it to. During the demo, the rather irritating speaker explains how you can customise the primary buttons at the foot of your iPod menu allowing you to access you library ion your terms. Easy, obvious but nice and something ‘other’ companies would miss.
It’s fantastically realised and the interaction, they way you skip through photos, music etc is reason to buy it in my book. I’ve had the privilege of using an iPhone (not lyet launched here in the UK) and oh my, it’s good. It’s oh-so-very-multi-touch-good. With an Apple on top.
From a personal standpoint my iPod 3G has finally died a death. It still works, but it’ll only last 45 seconds unless it’s connected to a power source. It lasted better than most as I’ve squeezed 3.5 years out of it. However, the criticisms I had of that product was that Apple had designed a computer peripheral and not a mobile product. I haven’t heard many stories of iPhone screens scratching but I hope they’ve cracked the mobile product aspect of the design.
I can just see the horror on people’s faces when they first drop their iDevice. You know the feeling. Brand new shiny mobile phone leaves your hands only to skip across the tarmac picking up it’s first ‘customised-by-you’ touches. Back to my iPod I’m still freaking annoyed that a £300 product has been designed to fail in this way. iRubbish.
Also, is it me or is everyone else getting just a little bit iBored of the iBrand?
So, I need a new phone, I need a new iPod. Choices, choices. Space or whizzy stuff?
Link: Apple Keynote,
FrankandPat 
It’s going to be a difficult decision choosing capacity over a potentially fantastic interaction method (I haven’t used an iPod touch or iPhone yet so can’t really comment of the quality of the interface from a hands on perspective), but it has made me question how I may carry music and video in the future.
Until now I’ve always just synced the whole library to my iPod because I can, but I am very much aware I only listen to a small percentage of it. It’s just the convenience of not having to give any thought to what I might want to listen to that I find so appealing and will find very difficult to give up. For anyone who’s read John Maeda’s book, The Laws of Simplicity, it’s one product feature that falls firmly into law 3 – Time. I sync, I’m done. no thought or time required. Lovely!
I wouldn’t write off the iPod nano just yet also. Initially I had the same thought when I saw it, but after seeing a good range of ‘out of the box’ photos I reckon it looks pretty good in three quarter view. The more 2D images I don’t think do it justice. With the ability to andle video and considering its price point I reckon it’ll do pretty well.
Comment by Michael McIntyre — September 7, 2007 @ 10:09 am