11 ms·

IMHO The iPod nano is more interesting to keep around than the iPod touch. The nano has a much more convenient form factor for things like the gym and exercise.

IMHO The iPod nano is more interesting to keep around than the iPod touch. The nano has a much more convenient form factor for things like the gym and exercise. I don't see why people would choose the touch over a low-end iPhone. It's basically the same device without cellular network capabilities. Speaking of cellular network capabilities, I'm still amazed that Macbook Pros still don't have the option of adding a sim-card. I know I can tether to a phone or pocket wifi, but I don't understand why depending on another device is still the status quo.

eridius 9y ago
> I don't see why people would choose the touch over a low-end iPhone. It's basically the same device without cellular network capabilities. Because it has no ongoing cost associated with it, like a cellular contract does. And it appears to be a lot cheaper. The iPod Touch has the same CPU and GPU as the iPhone 6 (albeit a smaller display; it's 4" while iPhone 6 is 4.7"). An iPhone 6 starts at $549 (without financing). An iPod Touch with 128GB of storage is $299.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- orbitur 9y ago
  Holy shit, I had no idea there's a 6th gen, AND it came out in 2014. I thought they were still using a handicapped A5.
- aphextron 9y ago
  >An iPod Touch with 128GB of storage is $299. But a comparable Android phone with 4G would cost around $100 these days. The iPod touch was a great product and it made sense when they released it in 2007. Smart phones were still extremely expensive and you had to have an additional expensive data contract to go with it, so it made sense to have a cheaper option. Now you can get superior functionality from a cheap Android phone with an SD card, so I can't imagine they are selling many anymore.
  - chx 9y ago
    > > An iPod Touch with 128GB of storage is $299. > But a comparable Android phone with 4G would cost around $100 these days. 128GB storage for $100?
    - Avenger42 9y ago
      Lots of Android phones do include microSD card slots, so (assuming you can get a phone for $100), you could just add ~$50 for a 128GB microSD card, maybe. (Edit: Added the parenthetical about getting a $100 phone. AndroidCentral's best "budget" pick was still $250 on Amazon.)
      - seretogis 9y ago
        As an Android phone user, SD cards are no substitute for a reasonable amount of flash storage. There are a limited number of things you can move to SD and a limited number of applications which support storing their generated content there. My 128 GB SD card has only about 19 GB of data on it (mostly Spotify), but my 32 GB of onboard flash storage is routinely at capacity. I'll never lean on SD so much again, and just spring for more onboard storage...
        bhaak 9y ago
        But we're talking here in the context of an iPod Touch. Moving all your audio onto a SD card is exactly what a SD card is perfect for.
        mixedCase 9y ago
        Enable adoptable storage, and Android will treat the SD card as an extension of the onboard memory. You just won't be able to take out the SD card and read it on other devices without formatting it.
        freehunter 9y ago
        I had an Amazon Fire 7" tablet that I used for comics and occasional TV shows on airplanes, and I routinely would ask the question of various Android fan in real life, on Reddit, and on this forum, I'd ask one simple question: How do I get my Downloads folder to map to my SD card? When I download something, I don't want to have to manually move it to the SD card, I want it to download directly to the SD card. The answer, after 2 years of asking, is always "there's gotta be a way" followed by "but I'm not sure how". 4GB of onboard storage fills up quick, which is why I bought a 32GB SD card. But stopping every other download to manually move files over is just a poor user experience. It's what I expect from 2005, not from 2017. I gave it away and bought a tablet with enough storage built in. My advice? Don't get suckered into the "but it has an SD card slot" nonsense. SD cards suck. Moving files around sucks. It should have storage built in.
- code_duck 9y ago
  That was also my logic circa a few years ago, but Apple's system of old models becoming the lower price unit has changed that. The 6 is 2 generations old, and with the new one coming out this fall, like usual, it's a lot cheaper than that. I recently found a brand new 32gb iPhone 6 with no contract for $200. A Touch at the same place - walmart - is $195. The 6 is definitely superior hardware to a Touch and you don't even have to activate it. You can also get a 5s or SE from them for about 150. When the new one comes out this fall, the 6 will be under 200.
  - eridius 9y ago
    > The 6 is definitely superior hardware to a Touch Superior how? The iPod Touch has the same SoC/CPU/GPU/RAM. The only real hardware difference is the iPhone 6 has a 4.7" screen, and while I personally enjoy my 5.5" screens, the popularity of the iPhone SE suggests that many people disagree that a larger screen is "superior hardware". That said, I have no idea how the camera compares. Maybe it is worse, maybe it isn't. Wikipedia isn't very forthcoming here. Well, Wikipedia does point out that the iPod Touch doesn't have the ambient light sensor that's used for automatic screen brightness. If true, this is actually kind of surprising (I would assume that component isn't very expensive), but I guess it does technically qualify as "inferior hardware", though this is a pretty small difference.
    - Avenger42 9y ago
      From Wikipedia: > All iPods lack Touch ID, 3D Touch, NFC, GPS, an earpiece speaker and a noise-cancelling microphone. Depending on the generation, the iPod Touch may have a smaller or inferior display and camera(s). Newer models (5th and 6th generation) lack the ambient light sensor that makes automatic brightness available. Also it shares the A8/M8 with the iPhone 6, but it's clocked down (1.1GHz vs 1.4GHz for the phone); both cameras are 8MP, but the iPhone can shoot regular video in 1080p at 30 or 60 fps (vs only 30 fps for the iPod) and slow-motion video in 720p at 120 or 240 fps (vs only 120 fps for the iPod).
      - eridius 9y ago
- danieldk 9y ago
  Or you can get an iPhone SE, which uses the same SoC as an iPhone 6s starting at $300. With the SE prices so low, the iPod Touch is a pretty bad deal.
  - kgermino 9y ago
    Isn't the SE $400/500 for the same storage of the iPod Touch at $200/300? If you don't need cellular $200 seems like a big price to pay for the upgrades.
- robbiep 9y ago
  It's great for integrated/specialist apps that only communicate via wifi or something (i.e. Plane ticket scanners and hundreds of other applications). My bet is that iPod touches are for industry. I deploy on them in some instances, they are perfect for limited location use where you can bridge connectivity by a non cellular means
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    > My bet is that iPod touches are for industry. My understanding is that they're for children, to help get them hooked into the ecosystem when they're young.
    - nol13 9y ago
      my anecdotal experience agrees
    - pfranz 9y ago
      Maybe that was the case years ago, but I feel like now there's plenty of hand-me-down iPhones or iPads.
  - zyb09 9y ago
    I've seen tons of people using iPod touches as dev devices. Much cheaper having multiple iPod touches running older iOS, or iOS betas, then having that many iPhones.
  - diegoperini 9y ago
    From my personal anectode, iPod touch is a great option for entertainment and media for someone who uses an Android phone.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    We deploy them at work. There are some devices that only integrate with iOS and an iPad is overkill.
    - lukeholder 9y ago
- shams93 9y ago
  Yeah it's a great device to web application compatibility with iOS without carrying 2 phone contracts if you prefer android.
anguswithgusto 9y ago
I have an iPod touch and (perversely) like not having data when I'm out. I can still use Google Maps and connect to WiFi when necessary, but prefer when my psychic default isn't always "plugged in". Of course, I'm a market of one. I imagine the real reason the iPod touch still exists is for kids too young to have phones.
jrnichols 9y ago
> I don't see why people would choose the touch over a low-end iPhone So they can give their kids what is essentially an iPhone but not have to worry about a cellular plan. Then they get all the games/goodies/Apple Music/Netflix at home on wifi.
- mintplant 9y ago
  Yep, I had an iPod Touch as a kid for this reason. Though nowadays you could get an unlocked smartphone for a reasonable price and not put a SIM card in it.
  - crtasm 9y ago
    I've considered that but was concerned about accidental calls to emergency services (young child here). Maybe android can be locked down to have the cellular radio always off, I should look into it.
james_pm 9y ago
iPod touch: $249CDN iPhone SE: $579CDN If dropped or lost, it's not the end of the world as a parent of two kids. Same reason why they both have $100 Android phones to carry around. For $350CDN, they have a phone/SMS device and a reasonably fast iOS device and decent camera.
rvanmil 9y ago
The iPod Touch is a cheap alternative to the iPhone for in-house/enterprise apps which don't require a cellular connection.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mrkrabo 9y ago
To those answering "because the iPod is cheaper", understand that the alternative to buying an iPhone is buying an iPod + a smartphone.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I know I can tether to a phone or pocket wifi, but I don't understand why depending on another device is still the status quo. Because cellular providers, even with shared-data plans, charge per device. If it was just a one-time hardware cost to get each device its own cellular data access, it'd be more popular, but it's an additional ongoing cost that isn't (for most users) warranted by the additional utility.
- malandrew 9y ago
  That explains phone tethering but doesn't explain pocket wifi. There is no reason that pocket wifi functionality can't be in the computer, eliminating an entire device.
Noos 9y ago
You give it to your kids instead of a cell phone, mostly.
- cannam 9y ago
  And an iPhone won't serve this role, because it needs a SIM to activate. So the iPod Touch takes users from Android that can't be served by an iPhone.
gadders 9y ago
I love my nano. I hope someone else picks up the baton and form factor.
- daveFNbuck 9y ago
  Search for mp3 player on Amazon. You'll find pages of similar devices for under $20. Many of them look identical to the Nano and Shuffle.
jowiar 9y ago
I imagine the way forward in that space is the watch. I wouldn't be shocked if the prices come way down this fall. If the use case is athletics, Apple could hit that market well if they drop below $200.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
radicality 9y ago
I still have the small clippable square iPod nano and love it for using at the gym, hope it doesn't break down.
feverishaaron 9y ago
Parents buy iPod Touches for their kids, so they have a cheap wi-fi enabled gaming and entertainment device, with no monthly contracts, that fits in mom's purse. Companies buy iPod Touches to use as ticket scanners, credit card readers and product catalogs among other things. Same reason – cheap, wi-fi enabled, no contracts.
dawnerd 9y ago
They want you to buy an apple watch which is being targeted to people at the gym and elsewhere. Since you can sync music to it and pair Bluetooth headphones it kinda makes sense.
intopieces 9y ago
I would like to see them replace the iPod Nano with a Siri-enabled version that plays music from the cloud over cellular. In the US, T-Mobile offers a DHH post-paid plan for $20/month that zero-rates Apple Music. You could stick their SIM in that device and have an infinite cloud iPod with Siri as the DJ. Sort of like what the Pebble Core was going to be.
dleslie 9y ago
In my personal experience it seems that many parents give their children iPod Touches with the mistaken belief that the children won't be sexting and such without a cellular network.
FussyZeus 9y ago
Honestly my experience with the iPhone tethering has been so good, I don't see a compelling argument to add cellular to the Macbook itself. Seriously, I've streamed Netflix over my phone with zero issues. If the tethering works that well, why go through the expense to add a cellular radio to the Macbook itself, plus the data plan charges?
ChuckMcM 9y ago
its the iPad nano :-)
Kurtz79 9y ago
I owned maybe the first or second model of the Touch, in the early days of the iPhone-era smartphones. At the time an iPhone did cost some 600€+ in Europe, while a Touch was 200€ or so. Considering that at the time mobile apps were much less "connected" and advanced than today, it allowed to have most of the functionality of a smartphone (playing games, music player, video player) at a much lower price. I agree that today makes much less sense, since smartphones have been getting "smarter", cheaper (aside from flagship models), and the apps more reliant on a data connection (which in turn has been getting cheaper and faster).
naravara 9y ago
The Nano is pretty clearly going to be replaced by the Apple Watch for those uses. I would expect future series Apple Watches to become more and more independent of the phone.
naravara 9y ago
The Nano is pretty clearly going to be replaced by the Apple Watch for those uses. I would expect future series Apple Watches to become more and more independent of the phone.
naravara 9y ago
The Nano is pretty clearly going to be replaced by the Apple Watch for those uses. I would expect future series Apple Watches to become more and more independent of the phone. And with wireless headphones like the AirPods the only annoying thing about that form factor is going to be taken care of.
naravara 9y ago
The Nano is pretty clearly going to be replaced by the Apple Watch for those uses. I would expect future series Apple Watches to become more and more independent of the phone. And with wireless headphones like the AirPods the only annoying thing about that form factor is going to be taken care of.

eridius 9y ago

> I don't see why people would choose the touch over a low-end iPhone. It's basically the same device without cellular network capabilities. Because it has no ongoing cost associated with it, like a cellular contract does. And it appears to be a lot cheaper. The iPod Touch has the same CPU and GPU as the iPhone 6 (albeit a smaller display; it's 4" while iPhone 6 is 4.7"). An iPhone 6 starts at $549 (without financing). An iPod Touch with 128GB of storage is $299.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
orbitur 9y ago
Holy shit, I had no idea there's a 6th gen, AND it came out in 2014. I thought they were still using a handicapped A5.
aphextron 9y ago
>An iPod Touch with 128GB of storage is $299. But a comparable Android phone with 4G would cost around $100 these days. The iPod touch was a great product and it made sense when they released it in 2007. Smart phones were still extremely expensive and you had to have an additional expensive data contract to go with it, so it made sense to have a cheaper option. Now you can get superior functionality from a cheap Android phone with an SD card, so I can't imagine they are selling many anymore.
- chx 9y ago
  > > An iPod Touch with 128GB of storage is $299. > But a comparable Android phone with 4G would cost around $100 these days. 128GB storage for $100?
  - Avenger42 9y ago
    Lots of Android phones do include microSD card slots, so (assuming you can get a phone for $100), you could just add ~$50 for a 128GB microSD card, maybe. (Edit: Added the parenthetical about getting a $100 phone. AndroidCentral's best "budget" pick was still $250 on Amazon.)
    - seretogis 9y ago
      As an Android phone user, SD cards are no substitute for a reasonable amount of flash storage. There are a limited number of things you can move to SD and a limited number of applications which support storing their generated content there. My 128 GB SD card has only about 19 GB of data on it (mostly Spotify), but my 32 GB of onboard flash storage is routinely at capacity. I'll never lean on SD so much again, and just spring for more onboard storage...
      - bhaak 9y ago
        But we're talking here in the context of an iPod Touch. Moving all your audio onto a SD card is exactly what a SD card is perfect for.
      - mixedCase 9y ago
        Enable adoptable storage, and Android will treat the SD card as an extension of the onboard memory. You just won't be able to take out the SD card and read it on other devices without formatting it.
      - freehunter 9y ago
        I had an Amazon Fire 7" tablet that I used for comics and occasional TV shows on airplanes, and I routinely would ask the question of various Android fan in real life, on Reddit, and on this forum, I'd ask one simple question: How do I get my Downloads folder to map to my SD card? When I download something, I don't want to have to manually move it to the SD card, I want it to download directly to the SD card. The answer, after 2 years of asking, is always "there's gotta be a way" followed by "but I'm not sure how". 4GB of onboard storage fills up quick, which is why I bought a 32GB SD card. But stopping every other download to manually move files over is just a poor user experience. It's what I expect from 2005, not from 2017. I gave it away and bought a tablet with enough storage built in. My advice? Don't get suckered into the "but it has an SD card slot" nonsense. SD cards suck. Moving files around sucks. It should have storage built in.
code_duck 9y ago
That was also my logic circa a few years ago, but Apple's system of old models becoming the lower price unit has changed that. The 6 is 2 generations old, and with the new one coming out this fall, like usual, it's a lot cheaper than that. I recently found a brand new 32gb iPhone 6 with no contract for $200. A Touch at the same place - walmart - is $195. The 6 is definitely superior hardware to a Touch and you don't even have to activate it. You can also get a 5s or SE from them for about 150. When the new one comes out this fall, the 6 will be under 200.
- eridius 9y ago
  > The 6 is definitely superior hardware to a Touch Superior how? The iPod Touch has the same SoC/CPU/GPU/RAM. The only real hardware difference is the iPhone 6 has a 4.7" screen, and while I personally enjoy my 5.5" screens, the popularity of the iPhone SE suggests that many people disagree that a larger screen is "superior hardware". That said, I have no idea how the camera compares. Maybe it is worse, maybe it isn't. Wikipedia isn't very forthcoming here. Well, Wikipedia does point out that the iPod Touch doesn't have the ambient light sensor that's used for automatic screen brightness. If true, this is actually kind of surprising (I would assume that component isn't very expensive), but I guess it does technically qualify as "inferior hardware", though this is a pretty small difference.
  - Avenger42 9y ago
    From Wikipedia: > All iPods lack Touch ID, 3D Touch, NFC, GPS, an earpiece speaker and a noise-cancelling microphone. Depending on the generation, the iPod Touch may have a smaller or inferior display and camera(s). Newer models (5th and 6th generation) lack the ambient light sensor that makes automatic brightness available. Also it shares the A8/M8 with the iPhone 6, but it's clocked down (1.1GHz vs 1.4GHz for the phone); both cameras are 8MP, but the iPhone can shoot regular video in 1080p at 30 or 60 fps (vs only 30 fps for the iPod) and slow-motion video in 720p at 120 or 240 fps (vs only 120 fps for the iPod).
    - eridius 9y ago
danieldk 9y ago
Or you can get an iPhone SE, which uses the same SoC as an iPhone 6s starting at $300. With the SE prices so low, the iPod Touch is a pretty bad deal.
- kgermino 9y ago
  Isn't the SE $400/500 for the same storage of the iPod Touch at $200/300? If you don't need cellular $200 seems like a big price to pay for the upgrades.
robbiep 9y ago
It's great for integrated/specialist apps that only communicate via wifi or something (i.e. Plane ticket scanners and hundreds of other applications). My bet is that iPod touches are for industry. I deploy on them in some instances, they are perfect for limited location use where you can bridge connectivity by a non cellular means
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > My bet is that iPod touches are for industry. My understanding is that they're for children, to help get them hooked into the ecosystem when they're young.
  - nol13 9y ago
    my anecdotal experience agrees
  - pfranz 9y ago
    Maybe that was the case years ago, but I feel like now there's plenty of hand-me-down iPhones or iPads.
- zyb09 9y ago
  I've seen tons of people using iPod touches as dev devices. Much cheaper having multiple iPod touches running older iOS, or iOS betas, then having that many iPhones.
- diegoperini 9y ago
  From my personal anectode, iPod touch is a great option for entertainment and media for someone who uses an Android phone.
- icelancer 9y ago
  We deploy them at work. There are some devices that only integrate with iOS and an iPad is overkill.
  - lukeholder 9y ago
shams93 9y ago
Yeah it's a great device to web application compatibility with iOS without carrying 2 phone contracts if you prefer android.

anguswithgusto 9y ago

I have an iPod touch and (perversely) like not having data when I'm out. I can still use Google Maps and connect to WiFi when necessary, but prefer when my psychic default isn't always "plugged in". Of course, I'm a market of one. I imagine the real reason the iPod touch still exists is for kids too young to have phones.

jrnichols 9y ago

> I don't see why people would choose the touch over a low-end iPhone So they can give their kids what is essentially an iPhone but not have to worry about a cellular plan. Then they get all the games/goodies/Apple Music/Netflix at home on wifi.

mintplant 9y ago
Yep, I had an iPod Touch as a kid for this reason. Though nowadays you could get an unlocked smartphone for a reasonable price and not put a SIM card in it.
- crtasm 9y ago
  I've considered that but was concerned about accidental calls to emergency services (young child here). Maybe android can be locked down to have the cellular radio always off, I should look into it.

james_pm 9y ago

iPod touch: $249CDN iPhone SE: $579CDN If dropped or lost, it's not the end of the world as a parent of two kids. Same reason why they both have $100 Android phones to carry around. For $350CDN, they have a phone/SMS device and a reasonably fast iOS device and decent camera.

rvanmil 9y ago

The iPod Touch is a cheap alternative to the iPhone for in-house/enterprise apps which don't require a cellular connection.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

mrkrabo 9y ago

To those answering "because the iPod is cheaper", understand that the alternative to buying an iPhone is buying an iPod + a smartphone.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I know I can tether to a phone or pocket wifi, but I don't understand why depending on another device is still the status quo. Because cellular providers, even with shared-data plans, charge per device. If it was just a one-time hardware cost to get each device its own cellular data access, it'd be more popular, but it's an additional ongoing cost that isn't (for most users) warranted by the additional utility.

malandrew 9y ago
That explains phone tethering but doesn't explain pocket wifi. There is no reason that pocket wifi functionality can't be in the computer, eliminating an entire device.

Noos 9y ago

You give it to your kids instead of a cell phone, mostly.

cannam 9y ago
And an iPhone won't serve this role, because it needs a SIM to activate. So the iPod Touch takes users from Android that can't be served by an iPhone.

gadders 9y ago

I love my nano. I hope someone else picks up the baton and form factor.

daveFNbuck 9y ago
Search for mp3 player on Amazon. You'll find pages of similar devices for under $20. Many of them look identical to the Nano and Shuffle.

jowiar 9y ago

I imagine the way forward in that space is the watch. I wouldn't be shocked if the prices come way down this fall. If the use case is athletics, Apple could hit that market well if they drop below $200.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

radicality 9y ago

I still have the small clippable square iPod nano and love it for using at the gym, hope it doesn't break down.

feverishaaron 9y ago

Parents buy iPod Touches for their kids, so they have a cheap wi-fi enabled gaming and entertainment device, with no monthly contracts, that fits in mom's purse. Companies buy iPod Touches to use as ticket scanners, credit card readers and product catalogs among other things. Same reason – cheap, wi-fi enabled, no contracts.

dawnerd 9y ago

They want you to buy an apple watch which is being targeted to people at the gym and elsewhere. Since you can sync music to it and pair Bluetooth headphones it kinda makes sense.

intopieces 9y ago

I would like to see them replace the iPod Nano with a Siri-enabled version that plays music from the cloud over cellular. In the US, T-Mobile offers a DHH post-paid plan for $20/month that zero-rates Apple Music. You could stick their SIM in that device and have an infinite cloud iPod with Siri as the DJ. Sort of like what the Pebble Core was going to be.

dleslie 9y ago

In my personal experience it seems that many parents give their children iPod Touches with the mistaken belief that the children won't be sexting and such without a cellular network.

FussyZeus 9y ago

Honestly my experience with the iPhone tethering has been so good, I don't see a compelling argument to add cellular to the Macbook itself. Seriously, I've streamed Netflix over my phone with zero issues. If the tethering works that well, why go through the expense to add a cellular radio to the Macbook itself, plus the data plan charges?

ChuckMcM 9y ago

its the iPad nano :-)

Kurtz79 9y ago

I owned maybe the first or second model of the Touch, in the early days of the iPhone-era smartphones. At the time an iPhone did cost some 600€+ in Europe, while a Touch was 200€ or so. Considering that at the time mobile apps were much less "connected" and advanced than today, it allowed to have most of the functionality of a smartphone (playing games, music player, video player) at a much lower price. I agree that today makes much less sense, since smartphones have been getting "smarter", cheaper (aside from flagship models), and the apps more reliant on a data connection (which in turn has been getting cheaper and faster).

naravara 9y ago

The Nano is pretty clearly going to be replaced by the Apple Watch for those uses. I would expect future series Apple Watches to become more and more independent of the phone.

naravara 9y ago

The Nano is pretty clearly going to be replaced by the Apple Watch for those uses. I would expect future series Apple Watches to become more and more independent of the phone.

naravara 9y ago

The Nano is pretty clearly going to be replaced by the Apple Watch for those uses. I would expect future series Apple Watches to become more and more independent of the phone. And with wireless headphones like the AirPods the only annoying thing about that form factor is going to be taken care of.

naravara 9y ago