Confirmed touch-screen iPod? [Update: Typo?]

I saw this artical and went to the link to see for myself. I see that there has been and update posted on the first of novemer 2006. This was concerning the supported models and fix minor text errors. This can be seen on page 53 of the file. If any one can find those updates, which I could not, tell me what you think because I am very curious.

Now, will everyone please get riled by the "text error" on page 38 where 640x480 is listed as a "Frame Rate"? All of us together can get THIS change made too! :)

Speaking for iPodfun.de against the confusion a missing translation has left:
We posted the story this morning saying that is clearly seems to be a typo. The headline "Keine neuen iPods mehr vor 2007" means "No new iPods before 2007".
The lead is about Apples Greg Joswiak saying:"The new iPod shuffle completes our all-new lineup of iPods for this holiday season and beyond" when announcing the availability of the new iPod shuffles this week. Talking on the not coming touch-screen iPods we mentioned the Apple pdf file and made clear it has to be a 'freudian' typo.
Cheers
Chris

@ fred: "Why bother coming to this site if you're just going to trash on the writers."

I agree there is no point coming to this site or any other _just_ to trash the writers. But when a story is badly written, under-researched, or just plain sucks, and there is an opportunity to leave a comment, then readers are perfectly entitled to do so.

This blog, like many others, is guilty of writers getting things wrong more often than they should (see Chartier's latest offering on Transmission as an example), and when they do they should be pulled up for it.

Don't like it? Don't read it.

It now appears that the doc has a release date of 11/02 (today) and has changed the wording. It now states:

"...All other Notes feature capibilites described in this document are supported for iPod models beginning with third-generation iPod (dock connector) models with touch-wheel."

Allow me to elaborate. I looked, and found "reportage", so in that I was dead wrong. However, I contend that coming out, and saying, "hey your story sucks" isn't really any kind of constructive critique. My problem is that I tire of the TUAW bahsers. Look, if you have something to add, or if you have a useful comments on how it could be better then great, but aside from that, please just keep it to yourself. What is more juvenile than, "YOU SUCK, DUDE!"?

on the other hand. That doc has a 20. Oct 2006 release date, or does it not?

This latest trend to leaping to the defence of the TUAW staff is silly and cringeworthy. Most bloggers want to be accepted as journalists and I assume the TUAW team share that goal. As such they doubtlessly recognise that they will be praised and criticised by their readers, and the latter usually outweighs the former. Anyone who writes professionally (i.e. is paid to put opinion or news to print) knows this from the outset, or they quickly learn. Indeed it is public criticism that, more often than not, hones good journalism.

It is fair comment to observe that the level of industry analysis on this site is not stellar. All too frequently the writers bang out their copy before doing even basic research to confirm their reportage (yes Fred, it is a word). They are knocked when this happens and rightly so: they are being paid for their efforts after all (even if it is a pittance). Certainly they can speak for themselves when the situation merits and don't need cheerleaders on stand-by. Posting 'if you don't like it go away' styled comments is juvenile and does no one any credit.

Actually, Fred, "reportage" is a word.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reportage

Thanks for the support, Fred. But it was a case of "jumping the gun" on my part. I read the analysis on MacDailyNews and a few other sites and figured it had passed enough eyes to merit immediate posting. Ah well.