Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, iPod Family
BusinessWeek is lukewarm on iPod Touch
BusinessWeek's Cliff Edwards recently reviewed the iPod Touch. While he gave it four-and-a-half out of five stars, he also made the same mistake that's plaguing many technophiles with regard to this device: Forgetting it's an iPod.It's an easy mistake to make. The iPod Touch is handicapped by its resemblance to the iPhone and the fact that it was released during the iPhone media blitz. As a result, people expect it to operate just like its twin. When it doesn't, they're disappointed. For example, Mr. Edwards writes:
"The Touch...lacks the iPhone's e-mail application, as well as its microphone, camera, and Bluetooth connection...widgets for gathering stock quotes, weather forecasts, and other information."
That's not an oversight, it's an example of Apple keeping the iPod true to its primary function as a digital music player. It's tempting - but unfair - to compare the iPod Touch to the iPhone. When the iPod Touch is compared point-by-point to its older siblings, it's clear what an advancement it is. Imagine the iPod Touch in a world without iPhones. People would be tripping over themselves to buy one.
"But the iPod Touch has Safari and YouTube," you say. I'd argue that Safari was only added as a concession to public Wi-Fi hotspots that require a login, and YouTube followed as a "Why not?" feature.
Later in the article, Mr. Edwards laments the Touch's lack of a "...slower cellular data connection" as a fall back for data transfer, as well as the fact that it can't download videos from the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store. The latter isn't unique to the iPod Touch, and the former goes back to my original point: It's an iPod, not a phone.
Finally, he says that the Touch "...will appeal to a smaller audience than the Classic or Nano because of its limitations and inflated price tag."
That's true, the nano has typically been the best-selling model. While the Touch is the priciest iPod, it's hardly limited.
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 4)
James said 6:00PM on 10-21-2007
Seriously, who don't people complain that the Zune doesn't run Windows Mobile 6? Why does Apple get punished for having a more advanced version of its product (iPhone) but others don't?
Talk about apologists...
Reply
Alfredo Octavio said 6:18PM on 10-21-2007
Does the writer of this story reads TUAW? A hacked iPod touch is a hundred times more useful than a unhacked one! Apple blew it on this one. So much so that they are backpedaling and giving us apps! the BusinessWeek writer saw through the bullshit, you should too...
Reply
amyjones09 said 6:52PM on 10-21-2007
The iphone and other Smart phones are supposed to be like little computers with alot of apps, mp3 players are not.
Reply
Wilder K. Wight said 7:02PM on 10-21-2007
I agree with the critique of the review. This is not the iPDA Touch, or the iNewton, or the iPhone Lite. It was marketed as an iPod with a few extra features, and that's what it is. Nobody's getting ripped off here.
You want the PDA features? Buy an iPhone. They're similarly priced and they're geared toward that feature set.
My only problem with the iPod touch is the storage space. I ultimately decided to take mine back and swap for an iPod classic. I realize that more storage would be very expensive right now, thanks to flash memory prices, but when Apple gets an iPod touch on the market with over 20GB of storage, I'll come back to the fold.
However, for what it is, it's still an exceptional value. You can't critique and review a piece of technology for what it isn't. You can't dock it points in a review for not doing something it never claimed to do. You can't expect it to be more than what it was designed and marketed to be, and that is a touch-screen iPod with WiFi access to the Internet and the iTunes store, with a little YouTube thrown in for good measure. THAT is what Apple advertised, THAT is what was offered, and THAT is what you KNOW YOU'RE GETTING before you plunk down your $300-$400 on one.
When you buy a VW Beetle, do you complain that Volkswagen *could have" made it capable of 4x4 off-roading but they didn't? Do you grumble about the inability of the car's engine to run on Jack Daniels without problems? Do you moan that the seats aren't removable like in an SUV? No. Because they advertised a product, you bought the product KNOWING WHAT IT WAS CAPABLE OF, and you don't expect it to have features not offered in the first place. You can bitch about the VW Beetle not having the features of an SUV, but in the end your choice is to buy the VW Beetle, or buy the SUV. Just because they're similar products (four wheels, steering wheel, dashboard, internal combustion engine, doors, windows, etc.) doesn't mean the features are comparable in any way.
The iPod touch is an iPod. Not an iPhone. I'm sick of it being reviewed as the iPhone lite.
Reply
Techslacker said 7:34PM on 10-21-2007
While it won't happen overnight, people should realize that Apple has now moved into a model that is more about milking the ipod for all it's worth. While they mention the ipod touch and the iphone are ipods, I think we're going to see in the next year or two where Apple talks about those two as "also playing music" and talking about them being more of a computing platform of some sort.
It's fair to criticize the ipod touch for not having certain features that the iphone does. I'd guess in another year or two many of those features mentioned will be on the ipod touch. Right now Apple needs a good way to attempt forcing more sales of the iphone.
Reply
BobbyW said 8:26PM on 10-21-2007
Did anyone mention that Cliff Edwards is the reporter who predicted the failure of Apple Retail?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_21/b3733059.htm
Reply
koreyel said 8:51PM on 10-21-2007
A couple weeks ago I posted a comment claiming that when I buy a car it belongs to me and if I want to hack it to get a few more horsepower I have every right to do so.
Oh no no no... wrote the corporate drones.
Hacking software is different than hardware.
They are two different things.
The analogy is false.
Ownership rights are different.
iPhone ownership isn't anything like Toyota ownership.
Now if you scan up thread these same drones are saying Apple has a every right to cripple a device just to create a product differentiation like the auto industry's.
LOLL (Lots of loose logic)
Drone on drones...
Now regarding a corporate drone's response to my comments about ATT hating net-neutrality and violating the privacy of its customers...
Get a mo betta education please:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/8a944876d073cccef4e22612651828d9.htm
Reply
clak said 10:14PM on 10-21-2007
@47
No one has said you don't have the right to hack your car or whatever Apple device you're refering to, but you have to admit, Apple doesn't have to cover your hacked device under warranty. Just because you own something, doesn't give you the exclusive right to do whatever you please.
Imagine someone running a red light and declaring to a police officer, "Hey, I own this car and have the right to do as I please with it."
Imagine driving without a license or insurance just because you think you have the right to do everything you want to just because you "own your car."
Your car analogy is weak.
Reply
yacoub said 10:41PM on 10-21-2007
"34. So many of you are arguing that adding a microphone or bluetooth costs money, while adding a Mail application is somehow "free." Try asking Microsoft about the value of software ... they'll argue it's *more* valuable than the hardware."
Right, that's why they charged $300-400 for a friggin' 8-16GB iPod... because they included so many amazing software apps... oh wait they didn't, we've had to put them back on ourselves.
Reply
Live2Hunt said 11:19PM on 10-21-2007
Well, I just improvise with what it has using the Contacts app.
Make a contact like: "notes"
add to it by adding a new address
give it a custom label like: "notes"
type what you want in the address fields
an unlimited amount of text can be entered in. well that's how it seems to be so far
I'm am a high school student and this helps keep track of homework and plans.
That is thinking outside the box. iPod touch is an iPod and not an iPhone. for me, I just call it the extremely shiny planner/time keeper and super-appealling super player.
Reply
Peter Beddow said 11:25PM on 10-21-2007
The first few comments pretty well sum it up. I've not yet seen a compelling reason why "less is better" in the case of the iPod Touch. We understand it's not a phone - so leave the phone part out. But it is EVERYTHING else the iPhone is, so give us the rest.
Reply
James said 11:54PM on 10-21-2007
The Zune2 is a failure because it doesn't run Windows Mobile 6.
Make sense? No.
Reply
Ron said 12:12AM on 10-22-2007
Words from Steve Jobs at the iPod Touch announcement day:
"It's an iPhone without the Phone".
If that was truly the case, then e-mail, [..]" microphone, camera, and Bluetooth connection...widgets for gathering stock quotes, weather forecasts, and other information." would all apply as something the iPod Touch should have. (OK, maybe not the microphone or the camera and bluetooth, because many phones DO have those features, but they are not requirements for a phone).
Since when does a standard phone have e-mail, widgets, weather forecasts, and stock quotes? Apple gave those features to the iPhone to make it a more resellable product.
The iPod Touch is not only for music. Otherwise, why would they include a calendar application? Does it record what music you've played on a specific date? Does it offer music recommendations for specific holidays? NO. That functionality is no more music related to than an email application or a stock quote app.
If anything, the stock quote and email application are more music related than the calendar. Who's to say people aren't emailing their friends to tell them about the cool music on their iPhone, or checking the value of Universal Music group with their stock application?
These functions don't require the use of any Phone-related hardware.
It ridiculous to think that the primary apps on the iPod Touch are strictly music related. Apple merely didn't put them on the iPod Touch in order to differentiate it from the iPhone.
Does Apple have to come up with a new name for a product that allows people to surf the web and sends emails while allowing for a music device?
I know that's what I thought the iPod Touch was, and based on Apple's initial announcement I expected it to include everything except the ability to make or receive phone calls. It doesn't cost Apple anything (except maybe a bit of Q/A time) to include this functionality, and it increases the value of the iPod Touch, so they should do it.
Sometimes, I get the feeling that Apple-specific press make excuses for Apple...
Reply
starkruzr said 1:34AM on 10-22-2007
Just because Apple calls it an iPod doesn't mean that's what it is.
It is clearly not an iPod. It runs OS X, iPods run Pixo. It can browse the web and has WiFi, iPods do not. Its hardware is capable of just about any task you could think of to throw at it, an iPod's hardware is comparatively limited. Its interface is perfect for a mobile computing device, the iPod's interface is perfect for a music device (and nothing else).
It is manifestly NOT an iPod. What's in a name? A device by any other would still be a new Newton.
Reply
hardmanb said 2:15AM on 10-22-2007
..."before someone in Apple decided to go corporate-fascist and spend extra time and resources to REMOVE or INHIBIT a lot of this functionality from the factory-stock device."
Wait just a cotton-picking minute. First everyone criticises the iPhone because it is "not revolutionary" because every feature already exists in other phones and other phones can do everything the iPhone can...
So why didn't the others bring us the capabilities of the iPhone? And why is there not a chorus of people calling Nokia, Samsung, Sony, ATT, etc...a bunch of corporate-fascists??????????
Reply
Ang said 3:07AM on 10-22-2007
I love my iPod Touch, and I have no intention of buying an iPhone it's to big as far as I'm concerned, I prefer small thin mobile phones, like the Sony Ericssons w880
Reply
XIV said 6:19AM on 10-22-2007
I bought the iPod Touch because we don't have the iPhone yet in Canada (well some do, but their hacked, and I'm not that kind). When I did, sure I was hoping of third party applications and I'm happy to see that our wish will be granted in Frebruary.
Reply
Tom Goetz said 8:13AM on 10-22-2007
Enough with the Apple bias. The article is right on. I would have bought one if it was really an iPhone without the phone as it was pitched.
Reply
bobvilla said 10:03AM on 10-22-2007
YouTube is on there because the iPod is an entertainment device, and not a PDA. Yes, they could have added all the software capabilities without reducing cost, and in all likelihood, they will in upcoming software updates. I'd love to have a camera and a mic thrown in on the device, but it's not really a deal breaker for me.
I'm not an avid fan of Apple's recent decision making, but the arguments in this article are so BusinessWEAK.
Reply
chucknasty said 12:26PM on 10-22-2007
I guess I am confused by the iPod Touch haters.
I own a touch because I don't want to pay AT&T a huge monthly bill for iPhone service. The touch has internet which covers most of my stocks and email checking needs (sending email with the faux-keyboard is NOT a real tempting prospect on touch or iPhone for me). BUT the primary reason I got it was to watch movies/shows on my train commute. The screen is great and having twice the memory of an iPhone I like it more.
Is the price prohibitive for some? Sure, but I remeber when I got my 15gig iPod years ago the 30gig model was $400. The iPhone is $400 PLUS $80 a month for TWO YEARS!!!! Do the math and tell me what the extra phone features cost, no seriously, think about how much the crappy 2mp camera and blue tooth costs.
I guess my point is this: if you think Apple isn't putting enough features in their products for you then please, don't buy them. If you seriously expect them to deliver a product that has all of your wildest dream applications on it and sells for $50 you are an idiot.
Reply