Back to Article

  • mygocarp - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Are you sure the iPod touch got the same display as the iPhone 5?

    If so that means it got bumped up to an IPS display this time. This seems like quite a compelling upgrade for the iPod touch, especially once considering it's price.
  • Kaboose - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    The design and manufacturing of one screen for the itouch and iphones might have saved them money vs. designing and producing two separate displays, while the itouch display could have been made cheaper you save money for buying larger volume of the better screen, and you don't need to pay for the additional design. 50 million 5" screens of the same type for 40 bucks or 30 Million for 50 bucks and 20 million for 30 bucks.

    also, they probably will be able to market this amazingly better screen for the itouch and possibly gain more sales.
  • ThreeDee912 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link


    "4-inch (diagonal) widescreen display with Multi-Touch IPS technology"
  • JMS3072 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    I suspect we have our reason why right there. I think the reason that Apple's using the same panel on both is that they don't want the added complexity of two touch methods at once. They've already invested the R&D into putting in-cell touch into the iPhone's IPS panel. To use a different panel on the iPod Touch, they'd need to either put in-cell touch into the lower-grade iPod Touch panel, or add a secondary touch layer. Combine that with the economies of scale of using the same panel on both the iPhone and iPod Touch, and I think you've got sufficient reason to simply use the same panel across the entire line. Reply
  • JeffDM - Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - link

    Which is an interesting and welcome shift from previously using an inferior display for the iPod Touch. Even if it was the same Retina resolution, the previous display was clearly not the same panel technology. Reply
  • ThreeDee912 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    "though interestingly enough the front glass plate color is white on every model."

    For some weird reason, I can't seem to find any images of the front of the black iPod touch on Apple's website. They all feature the colored versions.

    Is it really a black backing with white front bezel?
  • Saiforigis - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    If you listen to the end of the video you can hear two people in the background talking where they mention that the iPod touch has a white front except for the black, which I would assume has a black front. Reply
  • wolfme - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Apple shows the black iPod Touch on their website, and it does have a black front.

    To see an image of the black model, go to Apple's iPod Touch page and select the "Built-in Apps" item. The front of the black iPod Touch appears about half way down the page.
  • ThreeDee912 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Ahh, whoops. Guess I wasn't looking hard enough. Reply
  • Omega215D - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    I was hoping that after all this time Apple would put in a 32GB option for the new Nano as I don't want the larger size of the Touch and couldn't care less about video playback. The touch screen would be useful for managing music/ playlists and searching for music as I like it better than the scroll wheel.

    I currently have the 6th Gen nano and the power/ sleep button is known to get stuck due to Apple only using a double sided tape solution to keep the buttons in place. I hope that's not the case with the new Nano. I also hope Griffin comes out with a Courier Clip for the new Nano similar to the one for the 6th Gen.

    Strangely, the new Nano reminds me of the old Samsung touch screen players like the P3 and R0. It's cool though, those have been discontinued and I'm looking for a similar style player.
  • JesseKramer - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Is it just me or do these new iPods look a little bit Sony-esque? Especially the Nano. Reply
  • JesseKramer - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Maybe even a hint of Nokia Lumia. Reply
  • Leonick - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Of course, the 800 and 900 Lumias has a strong hint of iPod Mini and second generation iPod Nano anyway... Reply
  • irontom - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Hint? I am waiting for a lawsuit :> Reply
  • tipoo - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Their website says they sound like headphones that cost "hundreds more". Good to know the baseline is improving, but that's a very fallacious claim then. Reply
  • UsernameAlreadyExists - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    "The audio quality is so superior, they rival high-end headphones that cost hundreds of pounds more."

    I was wondering the same yesterday evening. If 200 is the lowest amount of pounds to fit in hundreds, those pods should be a match for over $300 earphones. ($360 to be unnecessarily specific ^.^)
  • aliasfox - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Any clue if the iPod Touch is the exact same one as in the iPad 2,4 or if it's the same one in the current generation AppleTV? IIRC, the AppleTV uses a die harvested single core variant with half the memory bandwidth. Not an issue for an AppleTV which doesn't have the same interaction as an in-hand iOS device (so the user won't necessarily notice if it's slower), but this solution would make the iPod Touch only slightly faster than the version with the A4.

    It would be nice if the iPod nano could be set to auto-record FM. I could set it to record NPR everyday from 4-6pm, for example (I don't think All Things Considered is available as a podcast). I'm sure someone decided to keep the recording studios happy by not including this feature though.
  • ThreeDee912 - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Well, Apple's site is already updated with all the new iPods and whatnot, and the "Features" section says "Dual-core A5 chip. Power meets play. It’s the most powerful iPod touch ever. That’s because the dual-core A5 chip provides up to twice the processing power and up to seven times faster graphics than the previous generation."
  • ciparis - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    Shouldn't that be ears on?

  • NobleKain - Thursday, September 13, 2012 - link

    I'm not a "gym guy", but there's very little doubt that the target demographic for the Nano are gym-goers (and those who generally like physically active activities).

    I believe there's a perfect market for this device, and as such, while it doesn't appeal to me personally - I understand the decision to make the nano.

    The 7 includes bluetooth, which is fantastic. What surprises me is this: The target market who buy the Nano are also still just as likely to own an iPhone as someone without a Nano, due to its purpose. Why not make it an iPhone "extender" via Bluetooth?

    The Practical application is this: You're on a treadmill in the gym, and you own an iPhone and Nano. You own the Nano, because the iPhone in your pocket is a little too big while running. Why not allow the Nano to connect to the iPhone sitting in your backpack on the floor (via Bluetooth), and if a call comes in, you can answer it without getting your phone via your Nano, using the new EarPods with inline mic connected to the Nano?

    It seems like such a simple application, and makes the Nano decision for iPhone owners even less of a redundancy question.

    Anyway, the Nano isn't for me with or without this feature... but as an individual interesting in product design, its strikes me as low hanging fruit that was missed.
  • Impulses - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    The old smaller form factor would've suited that concept better... The nano just seems to be a constant experiment at this point. It shrinks and grows every other gen, gaining and losing features at random... Probably the most overpriced too, yet I still find it appealing as a replacement to my Clip Zip... There's a big untapped market for exercise players with more hardcore features (GPS, heartbeat etc) and/or phone extender features as you suggest. Reply
  • robinthakur - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    Agreed, most of my friends with iPhones buy a nano or two for the gym. A built-in clip would be good or arm-band feature as well as the capability to add a heart rate monitor or GPS sensor maybe interfacing with third party ones using bluetooth. Apple would sell millions more of these if they did. I use my iPhone with walk jog run to map my run through GPS, and it is incredible for that. Something smaller which clipped on, that did that would be even more awesome, because all the Garmin devices suffer from being overly complex to use. I think the bluetooth link through to iPhone is a bit of a hit and miss feature though. My backpack is in the locker room in the gym when i'm running or doing weights and I doubt bluetooth would stretch that far. Reply
  • FaaR - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Is the mic really on the cord like with the older earbuds, or is it located on the right earbud?

    Looking at images, one of the side ports is clearly much larger on the right earbud than the left one; this suggests the mic has moved location methinks.
  • chemist1 - Friday, September 14, 2012 - link

    Fundamentally, the ipods are music players. Thus one of the most, or the most, important attributes is their sound quality. Yet somehow this always seems to get lost -- for instance, in this piece there is not a single mention of how they sound vs. the last generation (only the sound quality of the new earbuds is addressed). Brian, can we please get an assessment of this? Reply
  • MrCromulent - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    I hope Apple improved the notoriously quiet speaker in the iPod Touch. I like listening to podcasts while doing something else in my apartment, but the speaker volume is so low that you can't understand anything as soon as there's any other noise. Reply
  • dogears - Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - link

    Yeah. I am almost ordering one - I just want to make sure it equals or betters the Ipod Touch in SQ.
    An update regarding this attribute will be greatly appreciated.
  • trondp123 - Saturday, September 15, 2012 - link

    i was wondering if i should sell my ipad 2 and get a ipod touch 5th gen or if i should just keep my ipad?? a couple reasons why would be good Reply
  • iPod_5 - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    Do you get a traveling case for the ear pods with the new iDevices, or is it only for the people who buy them separately Reply
  • Anon. - Sunday, September 16, 2012 - link

    I've been trying to find pictures of the new iPod Touches in their actual colors (nothing ever looks exactly as it does on the product's page). Is that the pink iPod Touch or the red iPod Touch in the photos? Reply
  • LewKalb - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    Maybe it's just that I'm cheap, but I'm surprised that nobody, here or anywhere, has mentioned that the new iPod Touch is $100 more! Usually Apple keeps their prices the same of the new model and reduces the price of the old model, but not this time. Why? I know they've upped the minimum from 8 gigs to 16, but I'm assuming that's only because new apps need more space. Am I the only one who find the price increase odd? Reply
  • ThreeDee912 - Monday, September 17, 2012 - link

    Apple kinda split the iPod touch lineup, which is causing some confusion. They kept the old 4th gen, bumped it up to 16GB, and kept the price at $199. They lowered the old 32GB to $249, and got rid of the old 64GB.

    The new 5th gen iPod touch starts at $299, but comes with 32GB of storage. The new 64GB one is expensive as always, at $399.

    So there's now a kind of "low end" and "high end" with the iPod touch, kinda like what they're doing with the iPhone.
  • randomgirl11 - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link

    does the ipod come in gb sizes smaller than 32 gb? Reply
  • soccergrl21 - Sunday, September 30, 2012 - link

    So when does the new ipod touch come out??? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now