With the iPod Touch set to debut any second, I've been getting a lot of mail and phone calls asking: "Which should I buy? The iPhone or the Touch?" Here's a quick reference to help you make your decision.
Cost. At $299, the iPod Touch costs $100 less than the $399 iPhone. If you're looking for the least expensive entry point, your choices are the 8GB Touch or a refurbished 4GB iPhone. The Touch has double the memory for the same price.
Form Factor. The iPhone is bigger and heavier than the Touch. It weighs in at 4.8 ounces and 11.6 mm depth versus the Touch's slim 4.2 ounces and 8mm thickness. Not a huge difference to be sure but those extra 4 mm definitely feel different in the hand.
Built-ins. The iPhone offers a built-in microphone, speakers and 2.0 megapixel camera. The Touch does not. You can't snap a photo and email it on the go with the Touch the way you do with iPhone.
Contract-free use. The iPhone is designed to be used with a monthly service fee. The Touch is contract-free out of the box. The iPhone requires activation through semi-nefarious hacking before it can be used without a contract and/or phone service.
Hackability. The Touch is probably just as hackable as the iPhone but the iPhone is a known quantity.
EDGE. Surfing on the Touch is a WiFi-only prospect. The US iPhone offers EDGE for when you're away from WiFi hotspots. Even with EDGE, though, coverage is spotty.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
9-10-2007 @ 2:35PM
Eric M said...
Touch+Blackberry 8830=The best iPhone I never bought.
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 2:53PM
Rich Works said...
Here's how I look at it... why carry around multiple devices when you can have an all-in-one?
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 2:54PM
Kryptinite said...
@Rich
that was my thought process exactly and that's why i bought the iphone
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 2:55PM
Kryptinite said...
@Rich
that was my thought process exactly and that's why i bought the iphone
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 2:56PM
jrflesch said...
i have an 8gb iphone and i would answer "Rich Works" questions with this answer: BATTERY LIFE
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:08PM
Doud Blodgett said...
Last Wednesday, I bought a BNIB (brand new in box, not refurbished)4GB iPhone at an Apple store for $299 (40% price break!!!). This is the perfect mate to my 5G 80GB iPod. If I can't carry my whole collection on my phone, it's no big deal because I don't want to deplete the battery anyway.
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:10PM
Joe said...
@Rich
There's also the fact that a good deal of people interested in a touch-screen iPod either don't have/don't like AT&T, or are locked into other contracts. I'll save the hundred dollars and keep using my two year old LG flip-phone.
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:10PM
ChrisM70 said...
I am curious...does anyone know why the iPod Touch was given such a ridiculously SMALL drive - 16 GB? That's it? That's smaller than my second generation B&W iPod that I purchased FIVE YEARS AGO!
Is there a reason (besides GREED) for Apple to not put a more usable sized drive in them? You need more space than 16 GB if you want to add photos, videos, etc.
The "classic" has TEN TIMES the space! That's quite a contrast.
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:11PM
Gralem said...
The first thing I did after the price-drop was to buy the 8GB iPhone.
This is the best iPod I've ever had. I do not have AT&T (or any other
cell provider) service, so I do not pay $100+ per month. I cannot
watch YouTube or get Yahoo Push Email, because I'm not coming through
AT&T's network. When I am in a WiFi location, I CAN listen/watch all
my media, add calendar events, take notes, send/receive .MAC/Google
email. And I have a 2MP camera and Bluetooth on my iPod. I LOVE IT! (I cannt live without blackberry-fed wireless calendar sync, so 2 devices for now)
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:15PM
nod said...
@ Chris re: storage size. I think it's smaller becuase it's all flash-based memory rather than a tradition hard drive. Just FYI.
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:19PM
marcosmalo said...
@ 9. ChrisM70
Both the iphone, the iTouch, and the nano use flash memory, not spinning disk technology. There is no drive. This allows them to stay trim. I don't know about you, but I'm all about getting me some trim. I expect we'll see the 16 GB iPhone soon enough, probably with the European release, but don't expect to see a slim form factor iPhone or iTouch with 160 Gb capacity any time soon. The capacity is constrained by the current limits of flash memory. When larger flash chips are available, we'll see corresponding increases in storage space on the iTouch, iPhone, and nano. We'll also probably see the use of flash memory on the MBs and the MBPs, but that's another topic.
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:20PM
Ross Byers said...
@Chris: The difference is flash memory. The Nano, Touch and iPhone use flash memory. The Classic uses a laptop hard drive. Flash memory is both more expensive and bulkier per storage space than magnetic storage. However, it is much thinner, much lighter, uses much less power, has a shorter access time, and takes a beating much better than magnetic storage.
So it's not greed (any more than complaining that Nanos aren't as good as Classics). Just think of it as a Nano Touch instead of just a Touch, and it will all make sense.
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:21PM
rp said...
The reason for the difference in sizes is fairly obvious ChrisM70. The classic iPod uses a classic HDD, whereas the iphone/touch uses flash storage. As you know, even the tiny iPod HDs are huge compared to flash storage. I assume that had Apple decided to place a regular iPod HDD into the iPhone/Touch, then you'd have a gigantic device due to the requirements of the touchscreen, ARM processor, and new battery to power all that jazz. Prices for flash memory are much higher than classic HDD, so if Apple had decided to put 32 gb into those things, then you'd be paying out the ass more than you already are. Apple wants to get these things out there so people can ooh and ahh over them and still expect to pay the classic iPod price.
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:21PM
Michael344 said...
I would think that the iPhone offers a more complete package.I would rather spend the extra $100 and be able to have a phone and better access to the internet and mail.
Michael344
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:30PM
Brian Wiggins said...
You failed to mention the differences in the included applications between the iPod touch and the iPhone. The iPhone comes with more applications and some that are not crippled as they appear to be on the iPod touch, such as the calendar application.
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:36PM
Metaphor said...
In a complete dilemma here in the UK as we are both pre iPhone and iPod touch........if the iPod Touch is crippled with less 'PDA" functionality then I will wait for the iPhone...... 18 days to go I guess for at least one option. (Come on Apple give us a Euro Release date!!!)
Just one point.....how do you know they feel different in your hand? Have you held both? If so you must of used the iPod Touch so what are your impressions of it?
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:38PM
Metaphor said...
iPod touch........if the iPod Touch is crippled with less 'PDA"
functionality then I will wait for the iPhone...... 18 days to go I
guess for at least one option. (Come on Apple give us a Euro Release
date!!!)Just one point.....how do you know they feel different in
your hand? Have you held both? If so you must of used the iPod Touch
so what are your impressions of it?
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:38PM
Metaphor said...
iPod touch........if the iPod Touch is crippled with less 'PDA"
functionality then I will wait for the iPhone...... 18 days to go I
guess for at least one option. (Come on Apple give us a Euro Release
date!!!)Just one point.....how do you know they feel different in
your hand? Have you held both? If so you must of used the iPod Touch
so what are your impressions of it?
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:45PM
Stephen Lang said...
I'm gonna wait for the iPod Calendar, which will be like the Touch but allow you to create calendar events. It's gonna be awesome!!!! ;)
Reply
9-10-2007 @ 3:48PM
Mike said...
I'm looking to buy 2 iPhones (family plan). Can anyone give me an average cost of their monthly bill on a similar plan (the family/basic plan)?
Reply