Why the iPod touch Makes the iPhone Irrelevant



+ Add a Comment


thanks admin
information is the most beautiful treasures
3d oyunlar



thanks for all admin
information is the most beautiful treasures



Were not smart, but also learn from others bald.omega watchesChing had no water to fish, one to the cheap is invincible.replica watchI left Dragon, White Tiger right shoulder tattooed Mickey Mouse.replica watchesEfforts should be made! ! For your Audi Dior me.ccte



i need it thankyou


Apple Samurai

I'll tell you why I think iPod Touch 2G is better than iPhone 3G: If your credit is not all that hot you have to pay up to $750 just for a deposit to at&t!!! That damn near makes the iPhone a $1000 device!!! I'd rather stick with MetroPCS and get a Touch. No use in paying all that $$$ for no phone. But I guess we cant all have good credit. Sorry



As for a phone, I have exactly what I want and need, a darn good cellular plan and service that I think is unequal by AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile or Verizon. For over seven years now I have been a very pleased customer of CricKet. When everyone else is dropping calls in Denver Metro, my signal is strong. Within a couple days of iTunes first coming out, I was using it and back then maxing it out. Today I have over 4 terabytes of Apple LossLess files, but I have never owned an iPod! The Touch is really getting close to an iPod that I want to buy. My Motorola SLVR 7 gets me by when I need it on the net, but all it is to me is a super reliable cellular phone and service for me. I do not need to combine a phone with the features of an iPod Touch. But I would like to see GPS on the next model.



The most expensive, highest capacity iPod Touch is $399.99, not $299.99 as the article states. The iPod Touch 32GB is the most expensive at $399.99.



iPhone 3G 16GB is 299.00 not 399.00 in the US through ATT, if you are a new customer. What planet do you live on? If you are going to write for Maclife for God's sake get your facts straight at least.



Not just when I can find a wifi network. The iPhone/iPod Touch has the best mobile web-browsing interface IMO. I don't want to be stuck needing an internet connection. Maybe if you're in a big city with lots of wifi but out in rural New England the closest wifi is the nearest McDonalds and personally I'd rather not have to sit outside McDonalds every time I have to check my email.



I purchased the iPhone so I wouldn't have to carry a phone a handheld device like a (Palm/Ipaq/etc). The iPhone fits all my needs in one device. For now, I will stick with this device until something better comes along.



The only reason I bought the iPhone was because I wanted to stop carrying 2 devices otherwise I would've kept my BlackBerry. Plus when you add in a cell phone and the largest iPod Touch and the $10 every few months for the updates we get for free you are not far behind us in price. Oh and the 16GB 3G is $299 not $399. You sound like every other iPhone hater out there that goes and spends more on a device that does half as much...



Keep in mind also, that you can't simply say that the iPhone costs more than the Touch because of monthly service unless you face the scenario of either having an iPhone or no phone at all. If you will have cell service anyway, than part of (though clearly not all of)the cost of the monthly service would be part of your montly budget anyway.



What a pointless article. These are two different devices that serve two different purposes. Saying one is better than another is as helpful as saying dirt roads are better than paved ones. They both have their uses and fill the needs of their users just fine. Neither is better than the other. They are different.

Substance please.



The iPhone is a better device than the new iPod Touch, mainly because of the integration. The camera, GPS, and 3G give the ability to snap, geo-tag, and upload photos on the fly. There is currently no way to get photos from a digital camera on to the iPod Touch without syncing to iPhoto. If there were, then it would also have to be a GPS camera for the geo-tagging. I could live with waiting to get to a hot spot to upload, but those other features make the iPhone very attractive.

The only differences between the new and old Touches are the vol +/- buttons and the speaker. I have heard (TWIT or MBW) that the new iPod Touch's speaker has very poor sound quality, and I would rather the two other physical buttons be play/pause and skip track.

PS. I have an 1st Gen iPod Touch, and not an iPhone.



Until the Touch gets GPS a lot of apps are going to be broken for the touch.



I live and work in the SF Bay Area, and I can tell you that in the real world there is no such thing is ubiquitous WiFi. Even in locations where WiFi exists (like my office) it still isn't always "available" (I have to connect via VPN to access our work WiFi and iPhone/iTouch VPN client isn't supported). Furthermore, if you actually are someone who wishses a truly converged device, how are you planning to get telephone calls on your iTouch? Oh, I thought so. And even if you did get a VoIP client, be careful not to wander too far from that access point! ;-)

As with all things new, the Touch has generated excitement for it's form factor. But there are bits that go into the iPhone 3G that realistically prevent it from fitting in that same form factor. Can't do much about that. Oh, and as for battery life, the reviewer should update their expectations as of iPhoneOS 2.1. I previously wasn't leaving 3G turned on because of battery performance, but now I leave it on all the time and can go over a day (with mixed data, wireless, and phone usage) without charging. Further, if you turned off all the radios, I'm sure you could get similar batter performance to the Touch... it's like comparing apples an oranges when we're using the devices for what they're capable of...

An iPod with WiFi is still just an iPod, though perhaps the Touch is significantly more than other iPods... it is not an iPhone. After all, just because they run the same OS doesn't make them equivalent... if that were the case, one might take to calling a Touch and Mac! ;-)



...because it is an ALL-IN-ONE device!! Shouldn't you be posing the question, "Why the iPhone Makes the iPod Touch Irrelevant?"



I live in the largest town in my area (a whopping 10,000 people) and between my home, work and the towns tiny wireless service, I can still be within minutes of a sync. Add in coffee shops, hospitals, malls and other places that now offer wireless, and I can't help but totally agree - I don't have to deal with AT&T's gouging and spotty service in our rural area, but I still get all the awesome features.



I agree that the new touch is very nice. However, you don't have the Internet in your pocket if you don't have the phone built in as well. Perhaps in San Francisco you have ubiquitous wireless but in most of the country we don't. So I would be relegated to enjoying some of the best parts of my touch while at work or home. When I leave either of those places I would be without the Internet, which is when I need it most because when I'm at work or home I have access to my computer anyway.


This is in response to the ONE person who thinks there is enough WiFi coverage to make the touch a viable alternative. As many others have pointed out, that is a ridiculous statement. I don't care how many wireless locations you have in your small town. If you look at the overall square miles of your town and then subtract out the square miles covered by all of the wireless access points you will be left with a TON of uncovered area. Now perhaps AT&T doesn't work in your area so it wouldn't matter anyway. However, for those of us that do have AT&T in our town there is NO WAY that the touch will give you even 10% of the same coverage area simply by using WiFi. 

Log in to Mac|Life directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.