New iPod Day has come and (nearly) gone, and I must say, either it was disappointing or I’m getting too old for this. Has Apple lost its ability to amaze? I doubt it, but for the second year in a row, I’m down on the holiday lineup. Here’s the blow-by-blow:
iPod touch: There has never been a year when I wasn’t disappointed by the iPod touch, and 2010 is no exception. The first iPod touch, after months of anticipation following the announcement and release of the original iPhone, came with crippled software (no Notes, no Mail) and relatively small capacities (8 and 16 GB). The second-generation one was better, sure, and was barely revamped last year. This year, somehow, I fooled myself into thinking things would be different. The iPhone got a major redesign and some cool features; isn’t it time the touch did, too?
The iPod touch is sometimes called an iPhone without the phone, and I was hoping that all the upgrades to the iPhone 4 would trickle down into the touch. (I’m upgrade-eligible for the 4, but I’m not excited about re-upping with AT&T and their new $350 early-termination fees.) The upgrade I wanted most? The camera, for sure. The iPhone 4’s shooter is great for a phone camera, and soundly beats my 3GS, which is already capable of some good shots. So today when Apple announced a new iPod touch with that high-resolution screen, video calling, and high-definition video recording, I had one question: does it take pictures? During the keynote, though, I saw a shot of the camera app and sure enough, as it does on the current iPhones, it had a slider to switch from video to still mode.
Later this afternoon I went to the Apple website in search of more details, already knowing that the camera records in 720p, just like the iPhone 4. Does it get the same five-megapixel pictures? Not quite. According to Apple’s iPod touch tech specs, the iPod takes still pictures at 960 by 720 resolution. Let me do the math for you: that’s 0.7 megapixels. Not seven, point-seven. That sucks. I haven’t seen any samples from the camera yet, but I don’t doubt they’ll underwhelm.
I wonder how much the price difference is in camera parts between the touch and the 4; as it is, it’s cost them one touch sale so far.
iPod nano: The new nano is nuts, a tiny clip-on player with a 1.5” multi-touch screen. Peculiarly, the nano has lost the abilities to record and play video. I have a fourth-gen nano with a 2” screen and while it’s not ideal for movie-watching, I have caught some stuff on it while travelling and it’s not too bad. I liked having the option. Now it’s gone.
At first glance, the new nano appears to be the perfect exercise iPod, with its ability to clip anywhere and the adjustable screen orientation. But I don’t see the benefit of a touch screen over the ability to just hit “next” without looking at it.
When the iPhone came out, the touch interface was so obviously right for it: it gave you a huge (for the time) screen to use for videos and that computer-like web browser. When rivals copied it with products like the BlackBerry Storm, it was hilarious, because most of them didn’t have the same strengths as Apple’s platform and weren’t nearly as suited to the all-touch style. What does the nano get out of going that route?
The nano’s touch interface does allow a tiny player to have a relatively big screen. I guess that’s cool, I just would have rather had last year’s body (which, while bigger, was already impressively small) and a 32 GB capacity.
iPod shuffle: This one’s a huge win by today’s standards, with Apple giving up on the horrendous third-generation shuffle (a masterpiece of miniaturization that required headphone-cable controls) and returning almost exactly to the second-gen form factor: a small clip with a few buttons. Personally I still like the first-gen, with its built-in USB plug for easy syncing with any PC, but the new shuffle is tiny, looks durable, and at $49 for 2 gigs, might beat the nano as the exercise companion of choice. (Also, at that price, does the shuffle cost Apple more or less to make than its headphones do?)
iPod classic, or: I’m just glad they didn’t kill it. This year the iPod classic didn’t get a price cut or a storage upgrade, instead remaining at $249 for 160 gigabytes of stuff. I’ve always wanted a video iPod of this style since before they were called classics, but never quite pulled the trigger. I suspect I will continue to hold off, though it would be sweet to have all my music, pictures and videos on my person at all times.
So that’s it. If I was to buy one now, perhaps I’d get a touch, then feel, as I suspect most touch owners do, that Apple resented me for not buying an iPhone. (That’d be a weird feeling for me.) I think I’d use a shuffle and enjoy a classic. The nano? Eh. It doesn’t make sense to me. Why spend $149 for eight measly gigabytes when I could save fifty bucks and get a gorgeous fourth-gen banano?
